Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Hello Alex:

I think in order to get a better understanding of the role of the JW's and
particularly The Watchtower, it is important to reference some of their claims.
Only then will one be able to discern whether or not they are Jehovah's 
messengers.
    
The March 15, 1972 issue of _The Watchtower_ says:

	"There is a real need today for someone to speak as a true represent-
	ative of God... Is there someone who can bring the truth of God's Word
	to the people, letting them know what is ahead and what they can do for
	safety and survival?"  (p.186)

	"Who was willing to undertake the monumental task as Jehovah's 
	'servant'?  Was there anyone to whom Jehovah's heavenly 'chariot' could
	roll up and whom it could confront?  More accurately, was there any
	group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to
	speak as a 'prophet' in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel back there
	in 613 B.C.E.?"  (p.189)

Two weeks later, in the April 1, 1972 issue of _The Watchtower_, the question
is answered in an article entitled "They shall know that A PROPHET WAS AMONG
THEM":

	"...A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his 
	representatives.  In ancient times he sent prophets as his special
	messengers.  While these men foretold things to come, they also served
	the people by telling them of God's will for them at that time, often
	warning them of dangers and calamities... So, does Jehovah have a 
	prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to
	come?  These things can be answered in the affirmative.  Who is this 
	prophet?... This prophet was not one man, but was a body of men and
	women.  It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ,
	known at that time as International Bible Students.  Today they are
	known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses.  They have been joined and 
	assisted in their commissioned work by hundreds of thousands of persons
	who have listened to their message with belief.  (p. 197)

This particular article continues by commending the writings of the founder of 
their organization, Charles Russell, (_The Finished Mystery_, 1917) and early
Watchtower magazines (1919).  After a couple more pages of talk about the
prophet Ezekiel, and his prophetic calling, they say (now commenting on 
Ezekiel 2:9):

	"The scroll was doubtless delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of 
	the cherubs in the vision.  This would indicate that Jehovah's 
	Witnesses today make their declaration of good news of the Kingdom 
	under angelic direction and support.  (Rev. 14:6,7; Matt. 25:31,32)  
	And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God Almighty,
	the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as 
	directed from heaven.  Yes, the time must come shortly that the nations
	will have to know that really a 'prophet' was among them."  (p.200)

So let's review the important points from the above documentation:

	- The Watchtower Society says that they are "prophets".

	- The office of "prophet" is carefully defined as being like that of
	  Ezekiel.  Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be no less of a prophet 
	  than him.  If Jehovah's Witnesses aren't prophets, then neither is
	  Ezekiel.

	- The message which they preach is said to originate from God, handed 
	  down to them by angels.

This is important as the Book of Deuteronomy clearly points out the role of a
prophet, and the role and punishment of a false prophet.  If what you say is 
true Alex regarding 1874 and 1914, then by what spirit do you equate the
Watchtower Society?  And by the way, there were more than two predictions.
They also predicted 1878, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1931, 1941, and 1975.

Respectfully,

-Jack

More on the Watchtower.

In the 4/1/72 article, note that there are 3 ways to come to know
Jehovah. 1: creation,  2: bible,  3: his representatives (p. 197).  With regard
to #3 above, the article says this: 

"A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his representatives.  In
ancient times he sent prophets as his special messengers.  While these men
foretold things to come, they also served the people by telling them of God's
will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities.
People today can view the creative works.  They have at hand the Bible, but it
is little read or understood.  So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them,
to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?"  (p. 197)

Note that creation isn't enough for us, and the bible isn't enough for us.
We need this "prophet".  This affirms the Watchtower's claim to be Jehovah's
"special messengers", and rebuts any claim that they are just "interpreting
existing bible prophecies."  If the bible prophecies already exist, then why do
we need the Watchtower "prophet"?  Because without the inspiration of the 
Watchtower, you can't understand the Bible.

To answer the question as to whether or not the JW's consider themselves
Christian, let us observe their own words on this.  Pay particular attention
to the last sentence.

"Back there in Ezekiel's day the Israelite people to whom Ezekiel was sent 
could be called 'rebellious nations' because in 997 B.C.E. ten of the tribes
of Israel had revolted against rule by the royal line of David, who sat on
'Jehovah's throne'. (1 Cron. 29:23)  Thus there came to be two kingdoms or
'nations.'  The Kingdom of Israel set up golden calves for worship and the
Kingdom of Judah later also rebelled against Jehovah by breaking his laws and
engaging in idolatry.  In modern fulfillment, who are the 'rebellious nations'
that have rebelled against Jehovah?  Their counterpart is Christendom." WT
4/1/72, p. 199)

Read On

"No space on the scroll being wasted, it being written upon both sides, it was
a full message, containing a great deal of gloomy messages of calamity, back
there to Jewry, and today to Christendom.  Why so?  Because in both instances
Jehovah's professed people were so rebellious and set in their ungodly way that
Jehovah had to pronounce judgment upon them.  The scroll was doubless delivered
to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the vision.  This would 
indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses today make their declaration of the good news
of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support.  (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt. 
25:31, 32)  And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God 
Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as
directed from heaven."  (WT 4/1/72, p. 200)

Okay, so we have established by what the watchtower considers authoritative
writings that Christianity is in synch with rebellious Israel.  It would seem
odd to me that the watchtower society would even want to be known as
Christian.  In fact, do you not equate Christianity as the whore of babylon
in Revelation?

Respectfully,

-Jack
             

    Well, so much for putting up a defense for the watchtower!!

    Hang in there!  Not everyone checks in every day.  God knows exactly
    how many of our readers and participants have been lost to TFSO or
    other circumstances.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re .2 (and .1, indirectly)
    
>Note that creation isn't enough for us, and the bible isn't enough for us.
>We need this "prophet".  This affirms the Watchtower's claim to be Jehovah's
>"special messengers", and rebuts any claim that they are just "interpreting
>existing bible prophecies."  
    
    	Every so often these articles from the 1972 Watchtower pop up. 
    Given that the quotes are generally identical, my guess is that they
    all come from the same source, that is, some anti-Witness material
    (rather than being the product of each individual's direct research).
    
    	The reason this is obvious is that they are always used to support
    the straw-man notion that the Watchtower (and Watchtower Society)
    claims to be God's inspired (collective) representative, as though it
    were on-par with the inspired Bible writers of old (many of whom were
    genuinely inspired prophets).  What they NEVER do is point out that
    every issue of the Watchtower in 1972 contained the same blurb on the
    inside front cover, which expressly stated:
    
    		"The Watchtower is NO inspired prophet ..." (emphasis
    		addded)
    
    The truth is that Jehovah's Witnesses (and the WBTS in particular) has
    NEVER claimed to be inspired, and thus a prophet in this particular
    sense.  What these articles say are NOT in contradiction to other
    statements by the WBTS that all it has ever attempted to do is interpret 
    Bible prophecies, and has NOT claimed to have received new revelations
    directly from God.
    
    	The articles drew parallels between Ezekiel and JWs today on the
    basis of their both conveying condemnatory messages to apostates of the
    day, and thus in this special sense applied the term "prophet" to JWs
    as a group [which, understandably sticks in the craw of just about
    everyone else ...]; but the real question is, should ANY group that
    believes it is collectively representing God's will shy away from the
    notion that it bears the responsibility and authority of a "prophet" if
    it is doing its sincere best to faithfully interpret and relay the
    meaning of God's Word to people at large?
    
    	Personally I think that people who DO shy away from it are sitting
    on the fence.
    
>                             If the bible prophecies already exist, then why do
>we need the Watchtower "prophet"?  Because without the inspiration of the 
>Watchtower, you can't understand the Bible.
    
    	Factoring out the snide tone of the above, it can easily be
    generalized into the general question:
    
    		If Bible prophecies (of any sort) already exist,
    		why do we need ANYONE to help us understand them?
    
    The answer, not surprisingly comes from the Bible itself, with the
    account of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.  Philip was directed by "an
    angel of the Lord" (Act 8:26 RSV) to seek out the Ethiopian, who was
    "seated in his chariot, ... reading the prophet Isaiah" (v.28).  The
    account says:
    
    		"So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah
    		the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you
    		are reading?"  And he [the Ethiopian] said, "How
    		can I, unless some one guides me?"  And he invited
    		Philip to come up and sit with him. ... And the 
    		Eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, pray, does the
    		prophet say this, about himself or about some one
    		else?"  Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning
    		with this scripture he told him the good news of
    		Jesus."  (Acts 8:30,31,34,35 RSV)
    
    Many people are just like the Ethiopian.  They want to understand the
    Bible, but know they need help, and that they need "some one to guide
    them".  
    
    	Since the printed page is a powerful tool, and Jehovah's Witnesses
    have the same willing spirit that Philip had [to help people understand
    the Bible], they publish the Watchtower to accomplish what Philip did
    in that instance, which was to give a witness about the "good news of
    Jesus".  What Philip said at that moment probably WASN'T the direct
    product of inspiration (as though he were prophecying right then and
    there), but he surely did interpret (Isaiah's) prophecy on the basis of
    what he knew to be the truth.  Witnesses of today do the same (though
    we've also dabbled with explaining end-time prophecies which haven't
    had their complete fulfillment, thus we don't have the same benifits of
    hindsight that we all have on the prophecies that relate to the coming
    of Jesus as the Messiah ...).
    
    	Since the Bible itself teaches that people need some guidance to
    understand the Bible, it's certainly no crime to take up that task [of
    teaching others] as a full-time advocation.  No matter how you slice
    it, those who do become "special messengers," given that the prevailing
    attitudes of the world are NOT particularly in harmony with the "good
    news about Jesus".
    
    	However, to reiterate, JWs do NOT claim to be inspired; thus they
    aren't "special" in THIS sense.  As I recall, the article used
    "special" in the sense of particular messengers sent with a specific
    message.  What JWs of today have to say about Christendom is pretty
    particular and specific, the way I see it.
    
    ==**==
    
>Okay, so we have established by what the watchtower considers authoritative
>writings that Christianity is in synch with rebellious Israel.  It would seem
>odd to me that the watchtower society would even want to be known as
>Christian.  In fact, do you not equate Christianity as the whore of babylon
>in Revelation?
    
    	Perhaps this is just a fine point, but the articles aren't
    lambasting CHRISTIANITY, but rather, the wayward form of it that has
    come to be known by the socio-historical term "Christendom".  As a Jew,
    Ezekiel wasn't condemning Judaism or repudiating his own heritage as a
    Jew, but was rather condemning how far the Jews back then had fallen
    away from true worship.  Similarly, JWs aren't repudiating the
    Christianity of the Bible [as we understand it]; we're just critical of
    the form that it's taken [and they way it has behaved] throughout most of 
    the world.
    
    	Although we consider ourselves to be Christian, we don't quibble
    too much when other people say "no you're not", since that's just
    gainsaying.  Positive Christian actions and attitudes are more
    important, and far more telling, than mere claims and counter-claims.
    In addition, we go out of our way to make our identity as Jehovah's
    Witnesses known, since "Christian" is not only a very ambiguous term
    these days, but in some places, it's not exactly a label that inspires
    admiration, respect, and good feelings all around.
    
    								-mark.
    
    p.s. I just don't have much time to follow this conference, so e-mail
    follow-ups will probably get a quicker response (if any).

    re .3
    
>    Well, so much for putting up a defense for the watchtower!!
    
    	Keep in mind that JWs don't run this conference, and we didn't go
    out of our way to start this topic.  In the days to come, if this topic
    gets any more use, I'm sure that attacks will out-number responses many
    times over.  [But I think that the way people talk about JWs is telling
    in and of itself, regardless of whether what's said gets responded to. 
    In my estimation, people who go out of their way to bad-mouth my
    religion usually only lower themselves, rather than elevate the views
    that they hold to be true.]
    
    								-mark.

    re .1 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
    
>So let's review the important points from the above documentation:
>
>	- The Watchtower Society says that they are "prophets".
>
>	- The office of "prophet" is carefully defined as being like that of
>	  Ezekiel.  Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be no less of a prophet 
>	  than him.  If Jehovah's Witnesses aren't prophets, then neither is
>	  Ezekiel.
    
    	What you say here is only a half truth, since the point of the
    articles wasn't to compare experiences with Divine Revelation (for
    Ezekiel received a vision, whereas no one in the Watchtower Society
    claims that), but to compare circumstances, purposes, and the general
    content of certain judgment messages.  When you say the office of
    "prophet" is "carefully defined as being like that of Ezekiel," and
    THEN say "Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be no less of a prophet than
    him", you're really substituting your words for the Watchtower's, since
    that lack of inspiration DOES make Jehovah's Witnesses less capable
    than Ezekiel, at least so far as infallibility goes.
    
    	As the articles explain at length, the purpose of a prophet wasn't
    merely to utter inspired prophecy, but on broader terms to stand up for
    Jehovah's righteousness, setting the lead in moral and spiritual
    qualities, and to speak out against unrighteousness [and in Ezekiel's
    case, unrighteousness within the realm of God's named people, Israel].
    These articles liken the work of the Watchtower to the work of Ezekiel
    within the plainly stated context of what happened to JWs and to the
    world in the wake of WW1 (after 1919).  Specifically, Christendom in
    general pretty much wallowed in its own blood-guilt over WWI, whereas
    the Witnesses got their act together after some persecution-related
    setbacks to condemn Christendom's actions as wicked [which only got
    more wicked with the onset of WWII]; Christendom representing true
    worship about as well as ancient Israel did in Ezekiel's day.
    
    	To wit, WWI proved Christendom to be particularly unrighteous and
    bloodguilty, and thus worthy of divine condemnation, just as Israel in 
    Ezekiel's day was.  Jehovah sent Ezekiel to rub ancient Israel's face
    in its own wickedness; and to a certain extent, Jehovah's Witnesses
    have taken on the task of doing the same to modern-day Christendom
    [which is why we're so loved by all ...].
    
>	- The message which they preach is said to originate from God, handed 
>	  down to them by angels.
    
    	The message Jehovah's Witness preach comes from the Bible alone. 
    Again, we claim NO special revelation from God either directly or
    indirectly by way of the angels.  If you REALLY understood Jehovah's
    Witnesses, you'd know that we simply believe that God is using the
    angels invisibly to influence the work we do, to help us discern not
    only what the Bible's message is, but how best to present it and whom
    to present it to.  We take what the Bible says at Rev 14:6,7 and Matt
    25:31,32 to mean that God (and Christ) would make use of angels in
    otherwise unstated ways to assist faithful Christians in getting the
    preaching work done.  But, since we do NOT claim to have had literal
    conversations with angels (in person or in visions), we only confess to
    having faith that the angels are being used by God to help us get the
    'preaching work' done.
    
    	To claim we mean more than that distorts the truth.
    
    	If you REALLY want to understand what Jehovah's Witnesses believe,
    you should ask a Witness, not an anti-Witness who would only be too
    happy to misinterpret what the Watchtower says to make us look bad,
    regardless of the truth.  Again, ask those who live the beliefs of
    Jehovah's Witnesses, not those who only seek to discredit them.
    
    								-mark.

Mark: 

Please forgive any statement I have made which may have come across as snide.
It may have come across that way but my real motive was to perpetuate some
response from Mr. Odor and others.

To respond to your remarks on anti witness literature, my intent is to try to 
understand why the Watchtower is saying what they are saying and where the
inspiration comes from.  Now having said this, I call to mind two quotes from 
The Watchtower Society.

"The world is full of Bibles, which Book contains the commandments of God.  
Why, then, do the people not know which way to go?  Because the do not also
have the teaching  or law of the mother, which is light.  Jehovah God has 
provided his holy written Word for all mankind and it contains all the 
information that is needed for men in taking a course leading for life.  But
God has not arranged for that Word to speak independantly or to shine forth
life-giving truths by itself.  His Word says:  'Light is sown for the 
righteous.'  (Ps 97:1)  It is through his organization that God provides this
light that the proverb [Prov 6:20,23 'My son, keep your father's commandment,
and forsake not your mother's teaching...' -GDW] says is the teaching or law of
the mother.  If we are to walk in the light of truth we must recognize not only
Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother.  Some who call
themselves Christians and who claim God as their Father boast that they walk
with God alone, that he directs their steps personally.  Such persons not only
forsake the teaching or law of the mother, but they literally throw God's
woman out into the streets.  The light of God's truth is not for them."  
(WT 5/1/57, p.274)

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian 
congregation [JW phrase meaning the remnant of the spirit-begotten 144,000
--GDW] as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they
may believe that they can interpret the Bible.  For this reason the Bible
cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind." 
(WT, 10/1/67, p. 587) 

You say that The Watchtower is not a prophet, fair enough.  On that note I ask
you this question.  If The Watchtower is not equal to a prophet, I ask you 
by what authority does your organization make these claims?  Were the many dates
put forth by the Watchtower from God or are they from man?  Before answering, 
please justify the next two paragraphs.

"The official organ of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society is the magazine
_The Watchtower_.  It is published every two weeks.  It is announced with
confidence that the Lord uses the columns of _The Watchtower_ to transmit to
his consecrated people things that he reveals to them and provides for them to
know.  It is the privilege of _The Watchtower_ to publish explanations of the
prophecies, which explanation is based upon the physical facts that exactly 
fit the prophecy and show that the explanation is correct.  There is no attempt
on the part of _The Watchtower_ to interpret prophecy, for the reason that no
human creature can interpret prophecy.  Prophecy is of divine origin, and it
can be understood only when in course of fulfilment or after having been 
fulfilled.  Long centuries ago God caused holy men to write the prophecies,
and now it pleases him to unfold them that his faithful witnesses on earth at
the present time may be assured that they are in the right way, and their hope
may be strong."  (1935 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 52)


"True, there have been those in times past who predicted an "end to the world,"
even announcing a specific date.  Some have gathered groups of people with them
and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end.  Yet,
nothing happened.  The 'end' did not come.  They were guilty of false 
prophesying.  Why?  What was missing?  Missing was the full measure of evidence
required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy.  Missing from such people were God's
truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them.  But what about 
today?  Today we have the evidence required, all of it.  And it is overwheming!
All the many, many parts of the great sign of the 'last days' are here, 
together with verifying Bible chronology."  (Awake!, 10/8/68, p. 23)

OK, now it appears that the JW's, although God's only authoritative instru-
ment for interpreting scripture, made some fantastic blunders in the early
days of the twentieth century.  Hey, I'm fallable and am open to making
mistakes too.  Keep in mind however, this is the danger of date setting.
So how bout the many dates the Watchtower has claimed, all five of them?
And isn't date setting in disobedience to Matthew 24?  It might do you better
to look for the signs of the times, i.e. the abomination of desolation 
described in Daniel and spoken of in Matthew 24.  

Surely you are familiar with the well-worn quote by the Watchtower of the 
scriptures regarding the whore of Babylon, yes?  "Come out of her, my people...
"  (Rev 18:4).  It would appear that the Watchtower is equally guity of casting
dispersions on the local church as well.  I do not see challenging or even
using other commentaries as a campaign of anti-witness tactics. 

Rgds.,


-Jack

    Reply :  <<< Note 732.1 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>
                 -< True or False Prophet?! >-
    
    
    Hello Jack,
    
    First, I'am glad Mark Sornson gave you an answer to your questions.
    I couldn't give you any sensible answer because of lack of knowledge.
    E.g: My collections of Watch-towers, Year-books and Awake starts
    from 1985. Because it is at that time I started Bible-study with
    Jehovah's Witnesses. Later on I got some older publications, but
    non of them are of the year 1972.
    So, I don't have any idea what's written in there except what I read
    3 years ago in this conference.
    It was an argumentation (discussion) between Mark Sornson Gart Wiebe
    and others.That's the first time I read about the prophesies WBTS 
    wrote like you said, claimed that they are the Prophets in these
    days.
    The discussion (debate) was heavy stuff at that time.
    
    
    Answer to your last question.
    =============================
    The whore sitting on the wild beast in Bible-book Revelation is
    not only pointed to Christian religions in these last days but,
    to all false religions on this entire planet earth.
    Her name is Babylon the Great.
    
    Regards,  Alex.               
    

    Alex:
    
    You and I are in agreement on the issue of the whore.  If you recall,
    God referred to Israel in the OT as a harlot on many occasions.  Also,
    the book of Hosea is an excellent picture of how bad God's relationship
    was with Israel.  Hosea married a known harlot in the nation to
    illustrate how unfaithful Israel was to God.  It was because of their
    idol worship.
    
    Keep in mind however that there is a big difference between professing
    Christ and possessing Christ.  There are many churches under the title
    "Christian", that profess outwardly but inside is dead mans bones.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

.10

> There are many churches under the title
> "Christian", that profess outwardly but inside is dead mans bones.

Oh, so true.  And that church may be closer than you think.  It's always
easier to point a warning finger elsewhere, is it not?

Richard

    Yes Richard.  It does appear that every mans church, every mans
    religion is better than the others.  That is why (and surely you must
    know by now) that I am a stickler on standards, harmony between
    gospel claims and beliefs.  You know in other strings such as
    "ramblings" that there is diverse opinions on the outlook of different 
    biblical perspectives.  I don't believe I have ever pointed my finger
    at anybody else without some sort of evidence backing up my claim or
    fingerpointing if you will.  My entries here are in reply to claims
    made by the watchtower, not initiated by me.  If somebody points a
    finger at me, I am willing to learn but some sort of biblical or
    historical reasoning must be established on the part of the
    fingerpointer.   Pulling a belief out of the air or based on a feeling,
    to me anyway, is not of God.  It is of Satan.  Paradigms may not be 
    changed but I firmly believe they must be challenged.  If they aren't
    then one becomes complacent.  Not at all healthy!!
    
    -Jack

    re -* by JMARTIN
    
    Jack,
    
    	I'm working on a reply [that's a bit lengthy] which I'll post as
    soon as I've looked one more thing up [at home].
    
    In .12 you write:
    
>    biblical perspectives.  I don't believe I have ever pointed my finger
>    at anybody else without some sort of evidence backing up my claim or
>    fingerpointing if you will.  My entries here are in reply to claims
>    made by the watchtower, not initiated by me.
    
    	Just a nit, but I'd like to point out that you are replying to
    "claims made by the watchtower" as they've been interpretted for you by
    anti-Witness literature.
    
    	Additionally, no Witness (that I am aware of) specifically "pointed
    the finger" at you in this conference.  Be it as it may that you have a
    general bone to pick with _The Watchtower_, but you HAVE initiated some
    finger pointing here [you've just borrowed it from another source].
    
    	See you soon.
    
    								-mark.

    I don't agree with all the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    But neither do I go out of my way to point out to JW's just
    where we disagree.
    
    From my experience within this conference, JW's have been patient
    and cordial beyond the endurance level of most others when their
    beliefs have been called into question.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Actually, the fact of it being anti-witness literature is a non issue.  
    I simply quoted the Watchtower as the Watchtower printed it and wanted
    to get your reply on the purpose of its origin.  I did allude with
    permission from the Christian file because my questions to you a year
    back were never answered.  In particular, why does the watchtower feel
    they have the authority to set dates, especially when the watchtower
    has affirmed that there was false prophesy in the early days of the
    Watchtower ministry.  Again, this "anti witness literature" thing has
    absolutely no bearing on the facts needed to be learned by the readers,
    including myself.  Your lengthy reply is appreciated!
    Defending the faith is par for the course.
    
    -Jack

    Richard:
    
    Those who proclaim the gospel carry a heavy responsibility on their
    shoulders.  It is our responsibility to build one another up and exhort
    one another in the faith.  I think it shows greater love to challenge
    ones beliefs than to sit idly by.  Whats more, I don't think I have
    been uncordial in my inquiries.  I believe it is an important part of
    growing in the faith.  Moreover, disagreement and intolerance are two
    totally different things.
    
    -Jack

>    Actually, the fact of it being anti-witness literature is a non issue.  

Actually, I think it is an issue.

If you were a Catholic and chronically confronted with arguments from
anti-Catholic literature (and there's plenty of it out there), you'd
probably think it more an issue than you're saying here.

Richard

    re .15 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
>    Actually, the fact of it being anti-witness literature is a non issue.  
    
    	I'm not arguing that your questions aren't legitimate (provided
    that they really originate from you), but I think the fact that they DO
    have some connnection to this sort of literature indicates that your
    questions have a 'spin' on them that ought to be taken into account. 
    My point really is that you've got a challenge of your own to read my
    replies objectively, WITHOUT being unduly influenced by what you've
    already read (which is to say that you may have trouble cutting free
    from the taint of bias that you already, though perhaps with good
    intentions, have exposed yourself to).
    
>    I simply quoted the Watchtower as the Watchtower printed it and wanted
>    to get your reply on the purpose of its origin.  I did allude with
>    permission from the Christian file because my questions to you a year
>    back were never answered.  
    
    	A year, eh?  My how time flies.  [It just goes to show that people
    need to live forever, to get around to doing everything that needs
    doing. :-)]
    
>                               In particular, why does the watchtower feel
>    back were never answered.  In particular, why does the watchtower feel
>    they have the authority to set dates, especially when the watchtower
>    has affirmed that there was false prophesy in the early days of the
>    Watchtower ministry.  
    
    	Again, stay tuned.  I have already written my reply to this, but as
    I said, I want to look up one more thing [one of the articles you
    quoted].
    
>                          Again, this "anti witness literature" thing has
>    absolutely no bearing on the facts needed to be learned by the readers,
>    including myself.  Your lengthy reply is appreciated!
    
    	I commend you on your sincere desire to know the facts.  Again, all
    I wanted to do was point out that how you VIEW the facts is just as
    important as what they are.  A negative influence a priori is
    DEFINITELY a factor I feel obligated to take into account in answering.
    
>                       Your lengthy reply is appreciated!
>    Defending the faith is par for the course.
    
    	Shall I post it all as a single post, or break it up?  [I don't
    remember the rules here.]  How about a ruling, Mr. Mod?
    
    
    							-mark.

    
>    	Shall I post it all as a single post, or break it up?  [I don't
>    remember the rules here.]  How about a ruling, Mr. Mod?

Entries of more than 100 lines are discouraged.  Breaking a single entry
up is rather frowned upon, too.  But if you feel you absolutely cannot
condense or paraphrase the material to make your point, then try to limit
each posting to 100 lines.

Richard

Re: Note 732.17                

##>    Actually, the fact of it being anti-witness literature is a non issue.  

>>Actually, I think it is an issue.

>>If you were a Catholic and chronically confronted with arguments from
>>anti-Catholic literature (and there's plenty of it out there), you'd
>>probably think it more an issue than you're saying here.

That makes no sense.  Watchtower claims have contradictions.  JW's claim they 
are God's avenue for discipleship (And God's only I might add).  It is 
expected that they are going to be challenged in their faith.  There is 
absolutely nothing wrong with this.  Richard, your a great guy, but you have to 
get out of this political correctness mentality, worrying about healthy 
challenges to others viewpoints.  I have not been chronically rude or even
overbearing.  Mark, have I been overbearing?  If I have, then gosh we may as
well crawl under a rock and be careful not to hurt anybody's feelings.  I mean
    come on...let's build one another up here.  This is nothing! 
    Apparently you have never taken part in womannotes or soapbox have you?!  
Richard, I submit to you that had I not brought this whole thing up, you and I
would not have the benefit of getting Marks input through the reply he is 
going to post.  Mark, lay it on us!!! The whole thing in one reply.  I'm
planning to print it out and read it this weekend.  

-Jack              

    I overlapped Richards last entry.  Go by what he says!!

    re .20 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
Re: Note 732.17                

>##>    Actually, the fact of it being anti-witness literature is a non issue.  
>
>>>Actually, I think it is an issue.
>
>>>If you were a Catholic and chronically confronted with arguments from
>>>anti-Catholic literature (and there's plenty of it out there), you'd
>>>probably think it more an issue than you're saying here.
>
>That makes no sense.  Watchtower claims have contradictions.  JW's claim they 
>are God's avenue for discipleship (And God's only I might add).  It is 
>expected that they are going to be challenged in their faith.  There is 
>absolutely nothing wrong with this. Richard, your a great guy, but you have to 
>get out of this political correctness mentality, worrying about healthy 
>challenges to others viewpoints.  I have not been chronically rude or even
>overbearing.  Mark, have I been overbearing?  If I have, then gosh we may as
>well crawl under a rock and be careful not to hurt anybody's feelings.  I mean
>    come on...let's build one another up here.  This is nothing! 
    
    	Feeling very guilty for having lit the fire on this 'meta argument'
    about methods of approach let me just say this:
    
    		1) I'm really not *offended* by what's been said
    
    so "hurt feelings" aren't an issue for me, but:
    
    		2) the SLANT your initial questions have is a slant
    		   I've seen many times before; thus the real issue
    		   is that we aren't discussing my faith/views on
    		   "level ground".  
    
    I think this is what Richard was getting at [and if it was, I
    appreciate it].
    		
    
>    Apparently you have never taken part in womannotes or soapbox have you?!  
>Richard, I submit to you that had I not brought this whole thing up, you and I
>would not have the benefit of getting Marks input through the reply he is 
>going to post.  Mark, lay it on us!!! The whole thing in one reply.  I'm
>planning to print it out and read it this weekend.  
    
    	I *could* send it to you privately, but that would leave everyone
    hanging, wouldn't it?
    
    	I'll give it a final edit to see if I can't tighten it up a bit;
    but with this sort of topic, I'm prone to a say a lot in an attempt to
    1) lay some groundwork and 2) make my approach clear [maybe painfully
    clear? :-)].
    
    
    								-mark.

.20

> JW's claim they 
> are God's avenue for discipleship (And God's only I might add).

Lots of Christian collectivities claim this.  It wouldn't suprise me if you
said something similar about your own beliefs.

>  come on...let's build one another up here.  This is nothing! 
>  Apparently you have never taken part in womannotes or soapbox have you?!  

Funny these two sentences are located so close together, Jack.  Soapbox (in
particular) is hardly known for its quality of building one another up.

I have no problem with asking sincere questions.  But, it's been my experience
that anti-that-and-that propaganda seldom promotes such questions, that's all.

I will now take my leave of this topic.

Peace,
Richard

    re .20 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
>                Mark, lay it on us!!! The whole thing in one reply.  I'm
>planning to print it out and read it this weekend.  
    
    	OK ... I've finished my reply.  At 462 lines, it's obviously too
    long to post as one note.  However, even the logical sections after
    being broken up may be rather long, so for now, I'm going to
    compromise, and make my reply available as a world-readable file.
    
    	Anyone interested can copy it from:
    
    		ILLUSN::SYS$PUBLIC:WATCHTOWER-QUOTES.REPLY
    
    If enough people who read it think it should be posted, I'll break it
    up and do so.
    
    	Anyone may copy it, but PLEASE, unless I post it, do NOT reply to
    it via NOTES.  However, please DO feel free to reply by e-mail (even
    if only to say you copied it and read it).
    
    
    								-mark.

    Thanks, Mark, for the way you chose to do this.
    
    I copied your reply to my account and plan to peruse it later.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Mark or other JW members:
    
    Question strictly on an interest level.  I am a member of the diabetes 
    conference and it just occurred to me.  What is the standing on the use
    of insulin?  Afterall, insulin is an enzyme taken from both pork and
    beef and is used worldwide.  I ask this in light of your stand on 
    ingesting or partaking of blood.
    
    Just curious,
    
    -Jack

    By the way:
    
    Thanks Mark, for taking the time to write out the file on your reply to
    my question regarding dates and what have you.  I will print this out
    and study it over.
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    re .26 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
>    Question strictly on an interest level.  I am a member of the diabetes 
>    conference and it just occurred to me.  What is the standing on the use
>    of insulin?  Afterall, insulin is an enzyme taken from both pork and
>    beef and is used worldwide.  I ask this in light of your stand on 
>    ingesting or partaking of blood.
    
    	Insulin, though obviously something put INTO the bloodstream by the
    body, is NOT a component of blood, in and of itself.  Therefore, we
    have no particular spiritual objection to its use.  As is the case with
    all other non-blood medications, whether it should be used, and to what
    extent, is the responsibility of the individual.
    
    	Although I didn't participate in the previous topic string on JWs
    and blood, I'll add my 2cents to say that our stand on blood is based
    on what the Bible specifically says about blood and its spiritual
    significance.  Since God gave mankind permission to use animals for
    food (apart from their blood), it's not unreasonable to extend this
    permission to our use of animals for medical substances like insulin.
    Man, of course, must take responsibility for the consequences of doing
    so [given that *some* medicines may do more harm than good after tried
    'in the field', as it were].
    
    	Just in case there's some confusion, Jehovah's Witnesses don't
    object to *all* modern medicine; really, our only objections have to do
    with the use of blood as a theraputic substance.  Issues about other
    medicines or medical practices must be considered on their own merit.
    
    								-mark.

    I find your reply interesting, particularly since Insulin is not a
    medicine in itself.  It is a fluid enzyme taken from the endocryne
    system of a pig, a food strictly forbidden under the Mosaic law.
    I just find it intriguing that a bodily fluid used to preserve life is
    acceptable, from a forbidden animal no less.  Yet another is not.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    reply:. <<< Note 732.29 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>
    
    Jack,
    
    Within both replies yours (.26 & .29) I feel some kind of confusion.
    First of all, keep in mind that, we aren't under the Mosaic Law.
    Although we (as JW's) keep very tight to both "the Hebrew Scriptures
    And the Greek Scriptures" it can confuse the rest of the world who 
    aren't JW,s.
    
    To have a full understanding, people who are interested first need to
    have an Accurate knowledge of Scriptures.This can happened IF someone
    has a kind of hunger. It is a spiritual hungry to know the real thruth.
    Scripture like to feed us, but we must be in the first place the kind
    of person Biblebook Acts is telling ,already mention in here, "The
    Ethiopian Eunuch". The biblebook 2Peter digs more deeply into this
    matter.
    
    P.S: Remember, we are not under the Mosaic Law at first place.
    
    
    Regards,  Alex.
    

    re .29 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
>    I find your reply interesting, particularly since Insulin is not a
>    medicine in itself.  It is a fluid enzyme taken from the endocryne
>    system of a pig, 
    
    	OK, Ok ... I was using the word "medicine" loosely (so sue me ...
    :-)  It's still a produce that has a medical use, like a drug, in
    contrast to being an ordinary food.  [But obviously, the line between
    food and drugs is not always very clear.]

>                     a food strictly forbidden under the Mosaic law.
>    I just find it intriguing that a bodily fluid used to preserve life is
>    acceptable, from a forbidden animal no less.  Yet another is not.
    
    	To repeat what Alex said, the Witness stand on blood ISN'T purely a
    matter of our adhering to the Mosaic Law, for we don't believe that the
    Mosaic Law is binding as a body of legal tenets for Christians.  There
    are individual features of the Mosaic Law which have been carried over
    into what we could generally call 'Christian Law', and it so happens to
    that prohibitions on blood are among them.  But the restrictions on
    consuming pig products did NOT carry over, and thus are not an issue. 
    [Besides, the Law's restrictions on "clean" and "unclean" animals is
    embodies different principles than the restrictions on blood.]
    
    	Furthermore, God's prohibition of blood PREDATES the Mosaic Law,
    having originated in Noah's day, after the flood.  Thus restrictions on
    the use of blood are binding on ALL of Noah's decendants, whether
    Jewish, Christian, or whatever, since -- according to the Bible -- all
    mankind has decended from Noah.
    
    	For what it's worth, I think the phrase "preserve life" is often
    over inflated for its rhetorical value, since -- spiritual issues aside
    -- blood transfusions are known to kill.  Blood is *really* an organ of
    sorts, and thus can raise all sorts of havoc in the recipient's body. 
    Transfused blood is NOT the all saving, medically perfect substance
    that average people seem to think it is.  In fact, its dangers are
    becoming more widely recognized, to the point that bloodless surgery
    techniques are becoming more popular than just being concessions to
    Jehovah's Witnesses.
    
    	Man's medical efforts, at best, really only extend lives.  People
    die sooner or later; and thus no medical technique can truly be said to
    "save life" on a permanant basis.  The Bible teaches that man MUST
    recognize our dependency on God and Christ for the prospect of truely
    having our lives saved on a permanant basis [for the Bible DOES promise
    everlasting life to faithful people, even if they have to be
    resurrected].  Thus Witnesses are willing to suffer certain medical
    risks and bank on the surity of God's promise of life in the future for
    faithful people.  [And again, our views on blood are NOT primarily
    medical, but spiritual; and thus are a matter of faith.]
    
    	We do actively, and vigorously seek NON-blood treatment (rather
    than just rolling over and dying) -- so don't think we're anxious to
    throw our lives away.  But again, we believe a serious principal is
    involved which we cannot compromise.
    
    
    								-mark.

 With the dangers of AIDS being transmitted via blood transfusions (dangers
 which I would think are lesser today than 8-10 years ago) I can see a certain
 amount of caution.

 Yes, we are are going to die one day.  Setting aside my belief (and that of
 all of Christianity to the best of my knowledge) that the only mention of
 taking of blood in the New Testament refered to that which was sacrificed to
 idols, I cannot comprehend how any human being can allow their child or adult
 relative or friend to die or suffer for lack of a blood transfusion.

 Isn't mercy a prime tenet of the New Testament?  





 Jim

    re .32 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
> Yes, we are are going to die one day.  Setting aside my belief (and that of
> all of Christianity to the best of my knowledge) that the only mention of
> taking of blood in the New Testament refered to that which was sacrificed to
> idols, I cannot comprehend how any human being can allow their child or adult
> relative or friend to die or suffer for lack of a blood transfusion.
    
    	Here's what the NT says about blood (NOTE: James is speaking as the
    spokesman of the council of apostles and older men at Jerusalem):
    
    		"Simeon has related how God first visited
    		the Gentiles, to take out of them a people
    		for his name. ... Therefore my judgment is
    		that we should not trouble those of the
    		Gentiles who turn to God, but should write
    		to them to abstain from the pollution of
    		idols and from unchastity and from what
    		is strangled and from blood."  (Acts 15:14,19,20 RSV)
    
    This oral declaration was then written down and sent to "the whole
    church", carried by hand-picked messengers.  The letter concluded:
    
    
    		"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit
    		and to us to lay upon you no greater burden
    		than these necessary things:  that you abstain
    		from what has been sacrificed to idols and
    		from blood and from what is strangled and
    		from unchastity.  If you keep yourselves from
    		these, you will do well.  Farewell." (vs 28,29 RSV)
    
    Since the original issue had to do with whether Gentile Christians were
    obligated to uphold the Mosaic Law (in fact, circumcision was the issue
    that brought things to a boil, ref. 15:1,5), the ruling handed down
    obviously doesn't address JUST behavior having to do with idolatry.  It
    was a list of general principals that are found in the Mosaic Law that
    were still considered binding upon Christians [as ratified by holy
    spirit].
    
    	What was said about abstaining from things strangled and from blood
    hearkens back to God's commandments to Noah about showing respect for
    blood (since Noah was commanded to drain the blood of any food animal
    before eating it, and strangled animals, like those caught in a snare,
    would not have been properly bled).
    
    	The mention of the requirement to be [sexually] chaste makes it
    obvious that the context is greater than mere sacrificial rites.  It's
    true that false worship often had a sexual aspect to it (there were
    sacred prostitutes, and etc.), but you can't argue that ONLY
    religious, ritualistic sex rites were being banned, but good old every
    day fornication was OK.  Chastity under all circumstances was
    mandatory.  Likewise, a Christian's obligation to "abstain from blood"
    under all circumstances was not qualified, and thus the prohibition
    applies on a broad basis.
    
> Isn't mercy a prime tenet of the New Testament?  
    
    	God's mercy is forthcoming because he knows we will continue to
    err.  But obedience to God's directions is nevertheless an even GREATER
    tenet.  Mercy may be extended to forgive a sin that has led to a
    problem; but it's far better to avoid the problem in the first place by
    being obedient.  Even though God is merciful, the Bible provides no
    grounds for man to excuse disobedient behavior on the grounds that we
    thought we knew better, or thought we were doing the right thing at the
    time.
    
    ==*==
    
    	Just so I'm clear, lest I be accused of being irrational,
    fanatical, and prone to making accusations against others [of
    disobeying the Bible], I feel it necessary to point out that my views
    on blood, as a Witness, are views that I've come to terms with
    according to my own conscience after quite a bit of thought.  I
    certainly don't expect anyone [especially anyone coming at this topic
    for the first time] to find themselves in agreement with me.  My views
    on blood are a matter of deepest, personal conviction, and not just
    knee-jerk reactionism to the surface meaning of any one scripture.
    
    	I respect the views of other people who feel the medical use of
    blood is a positive thing; I just don't believe those views are in
    harmony with the Bible.  
    
    								-mark.

 And so if we should encounter a situation such as was encountered in
the parable of the Good Samaritan, where in this case one is in need of
blood, we are not to show him mercy?  What do you suppose Jesus would do?
Allow him to die?  

What happened when the Pharisees were accusing Him healing on the Sabbath,
in violation of the law?  What did He say to them?


Jim

    re .34 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
> And so if we should encounter a situation such as was encountered in
>the parable of the Good Samaritan, where in this case one is in need of
>blood, we are not to show him mercy?  What do you suppose Jesus would do?
>Allow him to die?  
    
    	I'm NOT going to argue with you over this.  If YOU feel that you
    should see to it that that person be given blood, then you wouldn't
    catch me standing in your way to give it to him (unless that person was
    my son -- since I have authority over my family, and my family alone).
    
    	*I* could not in good conscience pursue a course that included and/
    or otherwise required MY consent to give blood.  *MY* conscience would
    allow me ONLY to provide the best care possible as long as it did NOT
    include blood.
    
    	Showing mercy has NOTHING to do with this, since from the
    perspective of my own conscience, breaking God's law, regardless of the
    reason, is not something I could rationalize on the basis of "showing
    mercy".  Instead, I'd be showing that I thought my own judgment was
    superior to God's -- that I could make excuses for breaking his
    commandments because I feared for my life (or the life of someone else)
    MORE than I feared the consequences of violating those commands.  As I
    see it, this is a form of presumptuousness, and the Bible is full of
    examples of what happened to people who presumed to break God's
    commandments because they thought they had a good reason (or excuse).

>What happened when the Pharisees were accusing Him healing on the Sabbath,
>in violation of the law?  What did He say to them?
    
    	In my opinion, you are consistently looking at this from the wrong
    perspective, because you are seeking to justify loopholes in the very
    plain statement that Christian must "abstain from blood".
    
    	Jesus violated NO Biblical sabbath laws.  There were NO rules in
    the Bible that said that healing works could not be performed on the
    sabbath.  [The sabbath laws had more to do with not doing secular work
    for material gain 7 days a week, so that a man (or woman) might not
    only pursue personal interests, without ever giving time to spiritual
    reflection.]  The 'laws' Jesus 'broke' were merely traditional laws
    which were man-made.
    
    	Because those laws were man-made, Jesus could rightly point out
    that the Pharisees were overlooking things like compassion and mercy
    [which the Law required] in order to appear righteous according to
    their self-imposed standards of what it meant to be law-abiding.
    
    	On the other hand, the Bible does NOT teach that man can freely
    break one of God's genuine laws for the sake of seeming to keep another
    [like being merciful].
    
    	Besides the above, the Pharisees were advocating a view that would
    have required a person to do NOTHING to aid another on the sabbath.  If
    you are implying that the Witness view on blood is similar, then you
    don't appreciate that we don't believe that NOTHING should be done if
    blood is being lost.  All we ask is that everything possible be done
    EXCEPT that blood be given.
    
    	It may require a doctor to try something new [i.e., work without
    blood] -- but in a good many cases, this is really a good thing, since
    it forces doctors to be very careful to keep blood loss to a minimum
    [which some don't bother to do if they know they can just pump more
    blood in to make up for what is lost due to sloppy technique].
    
    	As I said before, bloodless surgery is becoming quite an advanced
    form of medicine; it's 'cutting edge', so to speak.  If you think
    surgery CAN'T be done without blood, think again.  Almost ALL forms of
    surgery have been successfully performed without blood.  Some hospitals
    in the US have even opened up bloodless surgery branches (for JWs and
    others) -- so it's not as though medical science itself requires blood
    to be given most of the time.
    
    	It's not merciless to ask that everything be done short of giving
    blood.  What IS merciless is for doctors to do NOTHING just because JWs
    refuse consent to take blood.
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .34 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
>                                      What do you suppose Jesus would do?
>Allow him to die?  
    
    	Jesus would have miraculously healed him, so the need for blood
    wouldn't have been an issue.  Why give blood, a stop-gap measure at
    best, when a miracle would fix the whole problem, and not just the
    symptom of the problem?
    
    								-mark.

    Mark:
    
    Although we don't agree, I respect your desire to act as you feel is
    right.  Although in all respect, your point on insulin is somewhat
    weak.  Mr. Odor (Hello there), has stated we are no longer under the
    Mosaic law.  I agree that Christ was the fulfillment of that law. 
    Eating Pork or partaking of Pork was not only a sacrilage (sp?), it was
    also written for health reasons.  We now partake of Pork (I assume) and
    yet think nothing of it.  I still have a problem justifying one and not
    the other.  But be that as it may, I concede you have your position;
    just some food for thought.  Also, I find John 6 quite interesting in
    that Jesus symbolically states, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink
    of my blood, you have no part of me."  Although symbolic, why use the
    drinking of blood as a symbol?  You've probably already explained over
    and over...Just more food for thought!
    
    -Jack

    
    Mark,
    
    I would like you to comment on some reading that I've been doing.
    I haven't been following this file, so if this is a repeat of anything
    I'm sorry.  I don't what to divide over something like this because but
    I don't think this is essential doctrine.  But I would like to observe
    an open discussion of the validity of the Watchtower's prohibition of
    blood transfusions.
    
      Some JW's are unaware that their leaders have had a history of
    introducing other medical prohibitions and then later changing their
    mind.  In 1967, for example, they prohibited organ transplants. 
    Followers were expected to choose blindness rather than accept a cornea
    transplant, or to die rather than submit to a kidney transplant.  But
    then, in 1980, the leaders reversed the teaching and allowed
    transplants once again (see The Watchtower, 11/15/67, pp. 702-704;
    Awake! 6/8/68, p. 21; and The Watchtower, 3/15/80, p.31). In addition,
    between the years 1931 and 1952, JW's had to refuse vaccinations for
    themselves and their children because the organization taught them: 
    "Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God
    made..." (The Golden Age, 2/4/31, p. 293).
    
    Orthodox Jews of today, who still scrupulously observe the regulations
    for kosher butchering and bleeding of meat, have no religious objection
    to blood transfusions.  Therefore, the original Hebrew text does not
    even hint at the interpretation that the Watchtower imposes upon it.
    
    What about Leviticus 3:17, which says: "You must not eat any fat or any
    blood at all" (NWT).  Can you explain why Watchtower leaders tell you
    to refuse blood transfusions but allow you to eat fat?  Are they not
    simply pulling words out of context from Jewish dietary laws?
    
    And while I see your reference to Acts 15, I Corinthians 10:25,27 goes
    onto say "Eat whatever is sold in the [pagan] meat market without
    raising any question on the ground of conscience" and to "eat whatever
    is set before you" in a pagan neighbor's home.
    
    To take a dietary regulation and stretch it to the point of denying a
    lifesaving medical procedure to a dying man is reminiscent of the
    Jewish Pharisees who were furious when Jesus healed a man on the
    Sabbath (Luke 6:6-11).  A letter published in the December 8, 1984,
    issue of "The Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) tell of Jehovah's
    Witness elders interrogating a terminal cancer patient in a hospital
    and then disfellowshiping him on his deathbed because he accepted a
    blood transfusion.  Now why is that necessary?  
    
    Jill

    re .37 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)/Jack
    
>    Although we don't agree, I respect your desire to act as you feel is
>    right.  Although in all respect, your point on insulin is somewhat
>    weak.
    
    	It doesn't surprise me that you think my point about insulin is
    weak, because I don't think there is much about insulin to make a point
    about.  It's a substance that we get from another animal; and with the
    exception of blood, the Bible indicates man has God's permission to
    consume animal products to sustain himself.  What the Mosaic Law said
    about pig products happens to be incidental (at this point in time),
    since that restriction only applied to the Jews under the Law.   What
    the Bible says about blood is set in a context that applies to all
    mankind at every point in time.
    
>                                 Also, I find John 6 quite interesting in
>    that Jesus symbolically states, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink
>    of my blood, you have no part of me."  Although symbolic, why use the
>    drinking of blood as a symbol?  You've probably already explained over
>    and over...Just more food for thought!
    
    	Actually, this point doesn't come up very often.  I guess most
    people aren't as sharp as you, with as much Bible knowledge!  :-)
    
    	Yes, it obviously is symbolic.  It had to be, in fact, since the
    Mosaic Law, which Jesus himself was under while a man on earth,
    prohibitted eating blood.  [It didn't exactly recommend eating human
    flesh, either.]
    
    	Since blood represents life, and our future is linked to the value
    of Jesus' sacrifice ['he shed his blood/life for us', etc.], and our
    making changes in our lives to follow the pattern Jesus set with his
    own life (as well as Jesus direct commands).
    
    								-mark.

 Re .35


 Wasn't the prohibition of eating blood specifically related to that which
 was sacrificed?  To the best of my knowledge there is no sacrifice related
 to the donation/transfusion of blood (other than the ouch when the needle
 is inserted).



 Jim

    re .38 (CSC32::KINSELLA)/Jill

>    I would like you to comment on some reading that I've been doing.
>    I haven't been following this file, so if this is a repeat of anything
>    I'm sorry.  I don't what to divide over something like this because but
>    I don't think this is essential doctrine.  But I would like to observe
>    an open discussion of the validity of the Watchtower's prohibition of
>    blood transfusions.

    	OK ... but it looks to me that what you've been reading is rather
    one-sided.  How "open" this discussion will be depends on how open you
    are to the Witness side of the story.

>      Some JW's are unaware that their leaders have had a history of
>    introducing other medical prohibitions and then later changing their
>    mind.  

    	That's a rather blunt way to put it ... but consider this.  The
    fact that they DID change their mind proves that the Watchtower Society
    isn't as inflexible and dogmatic and some people make it out to be.  If
    the Watchtower Society was truly closed-minded, it would never change
    its mind once it made it up on something.
    
    	You are right that some Witnesses don't have a lot of knowledge
    about past beliefs and policies; but that has much to do with the fact
    that we live in the present [looking toward the future], and our
    present understanding of things is what is most important to us.

    	As I've said before, this is 1993.  Our century has experienced so
    much change that it's hard to keep up with it all.  Technology in
    particular has posed a problem for mankind, since technology has tended
    to run far ahead of man's ability to assess the moral implications of
    how that technology should be used.  [Look at how complex the issues of
    nuclear technology are.]

    	The two issues you've raised, organ transplants and vaccinations,
    are two practices that modern medical technology have given us in this
    century, thus they obviously weren't things that the Bible could
    comment on specifically.  Therefore, things like thiese are raised as
    spiritual issues, the best we can do is look for guiding principals
    involved in matters that appear similar, but spelled out in the Bible.

>           In 1967, for example, they prohibited organ transplants. 
>    Followers were expected to choose blindness rather than accept a cornea
>    transplant, or to die rather than submit to a kidney transplant.  But
>    then, in 1980, the leaders reversed the teaching and allowed
>    transplants once again (see The Watchtower, 11/15/67, pp. 702-704;
>    Awake! 6/8/68, p. 21; and The Watchtower, 3/15/80, p.31). 

    	I'll have to go back and look these things up to see what they
    said; but I should ask you, have you read these articles yourself to
    see what sort of explanations were put forth at the time?

    	Everyone can be a Monday-morning-quarterback, and look back on the
    past and pass judgment well after the fact; but it's a far different
    matter to be looking at views and facts from the perspective of the
    time they were written.

    	As I recall, at the time the Watchtower Society's first opinion on 
    organ transplants was written, consideration was given to the notion
    that organ transplants were just a medically glorified form of
    cannibalism.  Since cannibalism is a morally repugnant action to most
    societies, it seemed pretty clear at the time that you couldn't find
    much in the Bible to justify the practice, and thus, by extension of
    the point, organ transplants couldn't be sanctioned, either.

    	Since then (and again, this is from memory), the Society's view has
    changed to one of neutrality on the issue.  A reconsideration of the
    facts related to those transplants drew them to the conclusion that NO
    ruling could be made either for or against the practice.  Therefore,
    the matter was out of the hands of our religious organization, and into
    the hands of each individual.

    	I can't comment on whether anyone was ever harmed by not taking a
    transplant back then, since I just don't know all the facts; but I know
    it's true that not all transplants work out for the better.  Transplant
    technology has come a LONG way since 1967.  Thus, I think it a strong
    possibility that the odds of transplants doing lasting good back then
    were not as high as they are today.  Who knows; some may have suffered
    irreparable harm in accepting a transplant because of man's more
    limitted knowledge back then.

    	If you feel it right to look back in time and judge the Watchtower
    Society on the possible adverse affects of its policies, do you also
    look back on the medical community itself and judge it on the basis of
    how much harm was done by older practices (like lobotomies, and etc.)
    in comparision to what is known and practiced today?  Or do you
    recognize that no matter what part of human society you look at, you
    will find that we all have to "live and learn".  At almost any point in
    time, we can look back on people or groups that were doing their best
    to do what they thought was right, and find things [even just a few
    decades later] that are quite wrong by todays standards.  (And this
    happens ALL the time in politics, medicine, economics, and the like.)

>                                                              In addition,
>    between the years 1931 and 1952, JW's had to refuse vaccinations for
>    themselves and their children because the organization taught them: 
>    "Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God
>    made..." (The Golden Age, 2/4/31, p. 293).

    	Again, welcome to 1993.

    	My personal library doesn't go back this far, and neither does my
    congregation's library, so I can't readily look up WHY it was said that
    "vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God
    made" -- but since you don't quote the reasons given either, it's not
    possible for me to comment upon, let alone judge the Society's values
    at the time.

    	HOWEVER, I once asked an 'old timer' about the vaccination issue
    back then, and he told me that (as he remembered it) it had to do with
    many vaccinations being derived from blood.  If this was true back
    then, since vaccination technology has advanced to the point that those
    same vaccinations AREN'T derived from blood any longer, vaccinations no
    longer are a matter of spiritual concern.  [Now each person must decide
    for himself and his family whether to be vaccinated, since vaccinations
    sometimes have nasty side effects; meaning each person must weigh the
    risks against the benefits.]

    	If there were OTHER issues at the heart of the matter, then I am
    unaware of them.

>    Orthodox Jews of today, who still scrupulously observe the regulations
>    for kosher butchering and bleeding of meat, have no religious objection
>    to blood transfusions.  Therefore, the original Hebrew text does not
>    even hint at the interpretation that the Watchtower imposes upon it.

    	The way the Jews interpret scriptures is there own business. 
    Orthodox Jews also feel that the Hebrew text doesn't provide enough
    evidence to support the notion that Jesus was the Messiah, yet a good
    1/3 of the world believes that; so so much for Jewish interpretations.

>    What about Leviticus 3:17, which says: "You must not eat any fat or any
>    blood at all" (NWT).  Can you explain why Watchtower leaders tell you
>    to refuse blood transfusions but allow you to eat fat?  Are they not
>    simply pulling words out of context from Jewish dietary laws?

    	In the first place, the reason the Law gives for not eating fat is
    DIFFERENT than the reason it give for not eating blood.

    	Blood was forbidden because it represented the soul, or life, of
    living beings, and Jehovah, as the Creator, lays claim to ownership of
    all life.  Fat was forbidden (really, it was supposed to be offered up
    in sacrifice) because it was among the "best" part of the animal ("a
    restful odor," the Bible says somewhere), and the Law stipulated that
    the best was to be given to Jehovah in sacrifice.

    	As I've said before, the reason Witnesses maintain a lone
    prohibition on blood [but NOT on medical practices in general] is that
    the historical contexts of the Bible passages which talk about blood
    indicate that God has placed these restrictions on mankind in a context
    OUTSIDE just the context of the law for the Jews.

    	God told Noah he could eat animals, but had to pour out the blood
    (Gen 9).  Since, according to the way the Bible explains history, Noah 
    was the forefather of the whole human race after the Flood, the
    restriction on blood that God gave him applies to all people from then
    on.  [Additionally, it's a decree that has never been recinded.]

    	The Mosaic Law confirmed God's viewpoint on blood.

    	Afterwards, with the advent of the Christian arrangement, which was
    NOT merely an aspect of Judaism and thus subject to the Law, the
    prohibition on blood as binding on Gentile (as well as Jewish)
    Christians was reaffirmed in the record of the first 'church council'
    (Act 15).
    
    	Thus, since Noah's day, all worshippers of Jehovah have lived with
    a restriction on the use of blood.

>    And while I see your reference to Acts 15, I Corinthians 10:25,27 goes
>    onto say "Eat whatever is sold in the [pagan] meat market without
>    raising any question on the ground of conscience" and to "eat whatever
>    is set before you" in a pagan neighbor's home.

    	The context of 1Cor 10 was different than the context of Acts 15.
    1Cor 10 talked about not mixing Christianity with idol worship, lest a
    Christian be guilty of partaking from the "table of demons" (v.21 RSV).
    The point of 1Cor 10:25,27 was that if the meat was not advertized as
    being the left-overs from some pagan sacrificial rite, a Christian need
    not worry about its origin (i.e., how it was slaughtered).

    	On the other hand, if it became known that its origin was
    questionable, with a connection to a sacrificial rite, Paul recommended
    that it NOT be eaten, so as not to damage the concience of onlookers
    (vs.28-29).

    	Paul WASN'T telling them, "hey, don't worry if the meat wasn't
    bled;" it's just that whether the meat was bled or not wasn't the issue
    he was dealing with.  [And when you think about it, if the meat was
    sacrificed, it probably WAS bled.]

>    To take a dietary regulation and stretch it to the point of denying a
>    lifesaving medical procedure to a dying man is reminiscent of the
>    Jewish Pharisees who were furious when Jesus healed a man on the
>    Sabbath (Luke 6:6-11).  

    	This point already came up; and I disagree that the issues are the
    same.  See my previous reply [a few replies back].

    	Since I've done quite a bit of reading on bloodless medicine, you
    are making a gross overgeneralization of the consequences of the 
    Witness position on blood.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of
    cases in which Witnesses were refused ANY treatment by one doctor
    because of the blood issue, but when transfered to another doctor (or
    even another hospital), appropriate procedures were available to treat
    the problem WITHOUT blood.
    	
>                            A letter published in the December 8, 1984,
>    issue of "The Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) tell of Jehovah's
>    Witness elders interrogating a terminal cancer patient in a hospital
>    and then disfellowshiping him on his deathbed because he accepted a
>    blood transfusion.  Now why is that necessary?  

    	I don't have any knowledge of this case, thus I can't say for sure
    why the elders felt it necessary to disfellowship the person on his
    deathbed.  But I can take an educated guess.

    	If the man really WAS on his deathbed, AFTER having been given the
    transfusion, then it's probably true that the transfusion DIDN'T "save
    his life"; and all he did was compromise his faith in fear of dying.
    In addition, the man probably didn't express any regret over doing what
    all other Witnesses consider to be a violation of God's law for
    Christians.  Since abstainance of blood is ranked on the same order as
    sexual misconduct ("unchastity" RSV; "fornication" NWT), the absence of
    a repentant attitude would obligate our congregation to take judicial
    (i.e., ecclesiastical) action against a person who willfully committed
    an act of such seriousness.
    
    	Our view is that each Witness, as part of our world-wide
    organization, is obligated to uphold our collective standards, whether
    in public or in private.  Since our collective view on blood is what it
    is, we expect each individual to maintain it at well.  When an
    individual compromises on a matter like blood, that sends a message to
    people like doctors that not all Witnesses will adhere to our official
    views if they are pushed hard enough.  Since this really isn't true --
    for a great many Witnesses HAVE remained firm, despite the seriousness
    of their condition and a great deal of pressure from doctors --
    we are obligated to defend our collective viewpoint, which the majority
    uphold, as well as our reputation.
    
    	Although disfellowshipping has a serious effect on the individual,
    it ALSO has an effect on our religion's public reputation, making it
    clear, for better or for worse, what we do and do not stand for.  I'm
    sure that the Concord elders felt that in the circumstances at hand, if
    they just let the transfusion slide, it would have sent a message to
    the Concord medical community that the Witnesses in that area weren't
    serious about the blood issue.  For us as a whole, this would be a
    defeat of greater spiritual consequence than one man's having attempted
    to defeat death by taking blood.
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .40 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
> Wasn't the prohibition of eating blood specifically related to that which
> was sacrificed?  To the best of my knowledge there is no sacrifice related
> to the donation/transfusion of blood (other than the ouch when the needle
> is inserted).
    
    	The prohibitions on blood were restated in connection with
    sacrifice (for eating some of the meat from the sacrificed animal, as a
    form of communion, was allowed), but they were also independant of a
    sacrificial context.
    
    
    								-mark.

 But weren't the scriptural prohibitions on eating blood specifically
 linked to blood from animals that had been sacrificed?  



 Did I misunderstand your answer?



 Jim

Note 732.41

>    	You are right that some Witnesses don't have a lot of knowledge
>    about past beliefs and policies;

I would add that some Christians don't have a lot of knowledge about past
beliefs and policies, either.

How many of us are proud of the bloody Crusades?  How many of us look kindly
on the Nazi regime which the church overwhelmingly supported at the time?
What about the way Galileo, Copernicus, and others were treated?

There's a lot more, but you get the idea.

Oh, incidently, JW's were on Hitler's hit list along with Jews, the
handicapped, and homosexuals.

Shalom,
Richard

 Mark, it seems to me that the context of Acts 15 is that the Jewish Christians 
were upset that the Gentiles were violating the Law, and that James was telling
 them "look, lets not offend these folks by eating meat sacrificed to idols, and
 fornication and from things strangled and oh, yeah, from the blood of those 
 animals".  It does not appear to me to be a binding commandment, particularly
 since earlier in the passage in Acts 15, Peter is talking about the "yoke of
 the law which neither they or their fathers had been able to bear".

 It seems to me that Acts 15 is talking about salvation being based on faith
 through the Grace of the Lord Jesus, and there is no mention anywhere in
 that chapter (or anywhere in the New Testament that I know of) that one's
 salvation is based on how one responds to the blood instruction.

 Granted, there are some health risks in blood transfusions, but it just 
 seems to me that there is a significant difference between eating
 and infusion through the bloodstream and I think we would be hard pressed
 to find a doctor that would disagree with that.




 Jim

    Jim,
    
    	I'm sure you're aware that various Christians at various times
    have experienced some kind of restriction as part of their faith.
    It might be a restriction against dancing, playing cards, drinking
    alcoholic beverages, smoking, playing the lottery or some other game
    of chance.  It might prohibit marrying outside one's circle of faith
    or using birth control.  I'm sure you could add to this list.
    
    	And no matter how much biblical evidence you provide contrary to
    the restriction, it won't sway the convinced believer.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    
    [God help me.  I never thought I'd see the day I'd be sticking up for
    Jehovah's Witnesses. :-)]

   Thanks, Richard.   I am not trying to sway Mr Sornson.  I am trying to
   understand the Biblical basis for the restriction and the "punishment"
   delved out to those who violate it.  I believe in searching the scriptures
   and in my search last night I found myself wrestling with Acts 15 and
   1 Cor 10, et al.


   My apologies to Mr Sornson if I have offended him.  That most certainly
   has not been my intent.





  Jim  

	Richard,

	Thanks for your comments, however if one doggedly sticks to their
	beliefs though it contradicts Scripture then ultimately it will be
	in vain. But people have a right to choose for themselves.

	Jehovah's Witnesses are very ethical people and as a whole strive 
	hard to keep God's standards even when confronted with death, such 
	as the example of the Nazi oppression you mentioned earlier, they 
	will not break their integrity or recant their faith (though a few
	may have, on the whole the majority held out).

	Their strong convictions are based on solid foundations. For
	example, with the blood issue Jehovah's Witnesses own quite a few
	publications that highlight God's view on blood as well as that
	of the medical world. One of these they recently studied worldwide,
	it is called "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" and is a 31 page 
	brochure. If any are really interested, I am sure a Jehovah Witness
	will be able to obtain you a copy. From my own experience each
	individual Jehovah's Witness makes sure that they make an informed
	choice.

	Jehovah's Witnesses makes their own individual choice , in filling 
	in and signing a blood card (renewed each year). This is carried 
	everywhere eg in the wallet, informs medical persons that they cannot 
	administer blood and why (quoting Acts 15:28,29) but also what they
 	do consent to if thay are unconscious. Also that they accept full 
	legal responsiblity for this decision and full release from liabilty 
	to medical persons if things were to go wrong. This card also 
	contains contact names in case of emergency and I personally don't go 
	anywhere without it.

	What Jehovah's Witnesses won't do is force their ethics on others,
	all they ask for is a right to choose for themselves and their
	minors.
	

	Phil.

     REPLY:.<<< Note 732.37 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>
    
    Hello Jack,
    
    
   >> Mr. Odor (Hello there), has stated we are no longer under the
   >> Mosaic law.  I agree that Christ was the fulfillment of that law.
    
    
    Although with somewhat delay [ :-) ] I will sure continue listening.
    As a matter of Fact;
    This conference did start (in Note 724) where I gave Mr. Button a few
    Scripture verses in answer on his questions where it is stated that the
    Bible says that we aren't allowed to take blood in any cicumstances.
    Also a bit of explanation concerning our blood-card,like Phil Yerkess is
    talking about in Note 732.48. 
    
    
    Start of this conferences was;
    Because of the death of a 11-days old baby whose parents refuse
    to give blood.
    
    
    Rgds   Alex.
                                 

    re .45 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
> Mark, it seems to me that the context of Acts 15 is that the Jewish Christians
>were upset that the Gentiles were violating the Law, and that James was telling
>them "look, lets not offend these folks by eating meat sacrificed to idols, and
>fornication and from things strangled and oh, yeah, from the blood of those 
>animals".  It does not appear to me to be a binding commandment, particularly
>since earlier in the passage in Acts 15, Peter is talking about the "yoke of
>the law which neither they or their fathers had been able to bear".
    
    	I see what you're saying, but I simply don't agree.  To me, it
    seems pretty straightforward that abstaining from fornication, things
    strangled (which haven't had the blood drained), and from blood itself,
    are not qualified as applying to a sacrificial context only (especially
    since you couldn't say that fornication that wasn't part of a rite of
    sacred prostitution to an idol was being tacitly approved).
    
    	Since the Gentiles, before becoming Christian [assuming they
    weren't already Jewish Proselytes], probably didn't think twice about
    God's views on blood, it doesn't strike me that they would have been at
    all offended by the practice of consuming blood or unbled meat, or
    offended by idol sacrifices or fornication, for that matter, since
    that's probably what they were used to.
    
    	It's true that the point of contention had to do with a violation
    of the Law (which Gentiles were never under), but that point, on
    circumcision, had nothing to do with idol sacrifices.  Really, if
    anyone was offended about something, it was the Jewish Christians, over
    the fact that their Gentile brothers weren't adopting the practice
    [which symbolized hereditary submission to the Law Covenant].
    
    	What the council ruling did was spell out for every Christian,
    Jewish and Gentile alike, what principals from the Law were still
    important, and by ommission, which ones (like circumcision) were not.
    Since Christian worship didn't include sacrificial rites (like the Law
    did), the consumption of blood from a sacrifice WOULD NOT have been an
    ordinary issue.  But since the possibility of eating unbled meat was,
    or foods mixed with blood (probably like blood sausage), it was
    important to point this out to Gentiles, who wouldn't have been aware
    of how important the sanctity of blood is to God (which, again, was
    spelled out in the Law for Jews).
    
>            It does not appear to me to be a binding commandment, particularly
> since earlier in the passage in Acts 15, Peter is talking about the "yoke of
> the law which neither they or their fathers had been able to bear".
    
    	According to Rabbinic tradition, the Law contained 613 (or 614?)
    specific commandments (including the "Ten Commandments") -- to say
    nothing of the ones tradition added.  Since the Jews were naturally
    sinful, and the law was so specific, it really *was* impossible for the
    Jewish people (forefathers and all) to bear the full yoke of the Law,
    with all its stipulations.
    
    	Since the Christian arrangement was founded on principals which
    were superior to the Law (principals designed to superceded the Law),
    it wasn't necessary to reimpose every last detail of the Law on Gentile
    Christians (and really, the Jewish Christians should have appreciated
    that they had been ransomed out from under the Law by Christ).  All
    that was necessary was for them to respect a relatively few number of
    restrictions to keep them from becoming physically and spiritually
    defiled.
    
> It seems to me that Acts 15 is talking about salvation being based on faith
> through the Grace of the Lord Jesus, and there is no mention anywhere in
> that chapter (or anywhere in the New Testament that I know of) that one's
> salvation is based on how one responds to the blood instruction.
    
    	The same can be said about fornication; but other scriptures make
    it obvious that a person's salvation CAN be jeapordized by fornication
    (which happens to be a practice people are easily drawn to).
    
    	Non-Biblical writings of early 'Church Fathers' proves that
    Christians WERE conscious of the need to "abstain from blood" in foods
    or as food itself.  During the Roman persecutions that followed, 
    Christians were given unbled meat in attempts to get them to compromise
    their faith.  As I vaguely recall, one writer defended Christianity
    against the charge of cannibalism by pointing out that they didn't even
    eat unbled animal meat, much less human flesh and blood.  Why the Bible
    writers don't mention it beyond Acts 15 is probably because Christians
    weren't having severe problems with it at the time the NT was written.
    
> Granted, there are some health risks in blood transfusions, but it just 
> seems to me that there is a significant difference between eating
> and infusion through the bloodstream and I think we would be hard pressed
> to find a doctor that would disagree with that.
    
    	Haven't you ever heard of 'intravenous feeding'?
    
    	Eating through the mouth is just the first stage of the body's
    protected way of getting nutrients into the blood stream.  Why do you
    think some drugs are injected instead of having a person take a pill?
    The answer is that the injection gets the stuff where it needs to go
    more quickly by jumping right to the bloodstream [avoiding the
    digestive process which may affect the ingredients and effectiveness of
    the drug].  I think you could probably get any doctor to appreciate
    that there are a lot of similarities between eating and intravenous
    injection.
    
    	Regarding prohibitions; if a government says substance <A> is
    illegal in all forms, that means don't drink it, eat it, smoke it, or
    inject it (unless exceptions are spelled out).
    
    	If a person is allergic to substance <B>, and therefore must
    abstain from it, that likewise means don't drink it, eat it, smoke it,
    or inject it.
    
    	To Witnesses, blood is like the original "forbidden fruit", not
    to be consumed in ANY form, since God has said it belongs to him.  To
    us, "abstain from blood" means just that, abstain from it in all forms,
    taking all methods of consumption into account [whether ancient or
    modern].
    
    								-mark.
    

    re .47 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
>   My apologies to Mr Sornson if I have offended him.  That most certainly
>   has not been my intent.
    
    	Thanks ... but there's no need to worry.  I'm not offended.
    
    
    								-mark.

    There's a JW speaking to my wife at the front door at this very
    minute!  Quoting the Revelation (...always Revelation.  I wonder
    why).
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re .52

	Richard,

	Was the person showing your wife Revelation 21:3,4?.

	If so, it is also one of my favourites for it holds
	out a hope of such a bright future, which is needed
	when we see so much gloom around us in the world today.

	Or could it have been Revelation 11:18b NWT "to bring
	to ruin those ruining the earth.". Another, one of
	my favourites for it shows that God will step in
	before mankind can say that he has ruined the earth.
	And for the first time in history we can clearly see
	that mankind is ruining the earth.

	One of the main points for our ministry is to direct
	peoples attention to the Bible and how much it gives
	answers to the problems mankind faces.

	But we don't just highlight the book of Revelation, 
	other Scripture commonly highlighted is 2 Timothy 3:1-5
	and Matthew 24 that show that we are living in a time
	that the Bible terms "the last days".

	Another Scripture often quoted is Matthew 6:10, for
	the main theme of our preaching is God's Kingdom. With 
	Jesus Christ now installed as king, it will soon fully 
	bring about God's will here on earth (Daniel 2:44).

	Sorry I'll stop there. Just wanted to show that we don't
	always use the book of Revelation, but we do highlight
	it to show that the events we see today where prophesied
	about some 1900 years ago and what things must shortly
	take place.

	Phil.

    Re:  The blood issue.
    
    If I were a member of the JW's, I would give serious reconsideration
    to the eating of meat products.  Regardless of intent, one who eats
    meat is still ingesting blood from that animal, regardless of whether
    it is done innocently or not.   
    
    If God compels you not to ingest blood or partake of blood, I encourage
    you in your decision.  But go all the way!!  Anything worth doing is
    worth doing well!!
    
    -Jack

    re .54 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)/Jack
    
>    Re:  The blood issue.
>    
>    If I were a member of the JW's, I would give serious reconsideration
>    to the eating of meat products.  Regardless of intent, one who eats
>    meat is still ingesting blood from that animal, regardless of whether
>    it is done innocently or not.   
    
    	It's probably true that the slaughtering methods known to Noah
    weren't any more exact than they are now (so far as their ability to
    drain blood goes).  Therefore, it's evident that the point of requiring
    Noah (and, by extention, all of mankind) to drain the blood isn't the
    mere consumption of blood, per se (as though God is going to split
    hairs over the presence of a few undrained blood cells), but rather
    man's obligation to show his respect for God's claim on life (via
    blood) by 1) purposely draining the blood to a reasonable degree, and
    2) purposely avoiding foods [and drugs] that contain blood as an
    essential ingredient of the food [or drug], whether left in or put in
    on purpose.
    
    	The act of draining the blood is what indicates one's intent. 
    Similarly, the act of avoiding food that has not had the blood drained
    also indicates intent.  If one willfully seeks blood itself or products
    which contain blood or are derived from blood, you couldn't say that
    one is doing his reasonable utmost to avoid blood, could you?
    
    	In the western world, most meat sold in meat shops and/or
    supermarkets has been slaughtered in a way that includes draining the
    blood.  However, there are times when the source of the meat may have
    to be questioned, particularly if the meat is known to be game -- so
    then, what you say would apply.
    
>    If God compels you not to ingest blood or partake of blood, I encourage
>    you in your decision.  But go all the way!!  Anything worth doing is
>    worth doing well!!
    
    	Thanks for the encouragement, but the Bible's stipulations must be
    understood in light of what is reasonable.  Again, the heart of the
    prohibition involves a display of respect for blood [by draining it],
    and to the converse, involves avoiding gross disrespect for blood by
    willfully seeking to consume it for what it is.  Since Jehovah himself
    didn't specify a procedure for bleeding meat to insure 100%
    bloodlessness, it's obvious that the overall spirit of the prohibition
    is what we're suppose to observe.
    
    	Do you see what I mean?
    
    								-mark.

We had JW come visit us about a week ago.  I was up on a
ladder painting, so my wife answered the door.  She managed
to send her on her way after a pleasant exchange.  A few
days later, she saw her again in the supermarket and she
offered my wife a tip on the fruit they were looking at.
Robyn was very pleased that all had gone well at our
house a few days back.

    I have to admit that every JW who's come to my door has been pleasant.
    Not always so the local Baptists and "Non-demoninationals", but that's
    another string.
    
    More than once I've invited my visitor in and offered a cup of tea.
    I feel one of the great things we moderns lack that the ancients insisted
    upon is hospitality to the stranger, but that's another string.
    
    No JW has yet accepted my invitation.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re .57 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)/Richard
    
>    More than once I've invited my visitor in and offered a cup of tea.
>    I feel one of the great things we moderns lack that the ancients insisted
>    upon is hospitality to the stranger, but that's another string.
>    
>    No JW has yet accepted my invitation.
    
    	Hmmm ... where did you say you live?  :-)
    
    
    								-mark.

.58     N
      W + E
        S
                          /        /
         Windflower -->  /       */
                        /        /
                 |      |       |  <-- Anemone Cir
                 |______|_______|____________
Meadowland -->   |         Indian Pipe
                 |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
<-- to Union               Austin Bluffs Pkwy           to Academy -->

Richard & Sharon Jones-Christie
3614 Anemone Circle, Colorado Springs
719-594-4935

    re .59 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>                   -< The Welcome mat is out for you, Mark >-
    
    Thanks ...
    
>Richard & Sharon Jones-Christie
>3614 Anemone Circle, Colorado Springs
    
    ... but that's a bit of a commute for me (from NH).  Still, you never
    know who will drop by ...
    
    
    								-mark.

I can no longer say that no Jehovah's Witness has accepted an invitation
into my home.  I've been loaned a VCR tape entitled "Purple Triangles,"
which I intend to view sometime this week.  And I've been given a hardcover
book to read at my leisure.

I don't want to embarrass anybody, so I won't mention their names, but I owe
the honor of today's visit with 2 Witnesses to this very notesfile.

Peace,
Richard

On the uniforms of the prisoners of Nazi concentration camps were sewn symbols
to identify the nature of the wearer's imprisonment:

	A shield of David = a Jew.

	A red inverted triangle = a Communist, a political dissenter.

	A pink inverted triangle = a (male) homosexual.

	A purple inverted triangle = a Jehovah's Witness.

	Only the Jehovah's Witness was given an opportunity to renounce his
or her faith and pledge his or her loyalty to the Nazi regime.  A few did.
Most did not.

Peace,
Richard

    Highly commendable!!!
    
    -Jack

On October 7, 1934, Adolph Hitler declared about Jehovah's Witnesses, "This
brood will be exterminated in Germany!"  According to a confidential notifica-
tion dated June 24, 1936, by the Prussian Secret State Police, a "special
Gestapo Command" was formed to fight against the Witnesses.  Records indicate 
that over 6,200 German Witnesses were eventually arrested, out of less than 
20,000 total (German Witnesses).  Hundreds were killed.  Karl Wittig, a former
German government officer who was detained in several concentration camps, said
regarding the treatment of Witnesses in the camps, "It was a sadism marked by
an unending chain of physical and mental tortures, the likes of which no
language in the world can express."

In the book _The Nazi State and the New Religions:  Five Case Studies in Non-
Conformity_ (1982), author Christine King wrote, "Only against the Witnesses
[in contrast to other religious groups] was the government unsuccessful."
"The [Witnesses] work went on and in May 1945 the Jehovah's Witness movement
was still alive, whilst National Socialism was not."  She also pointed out,
"No compromises had been made."  Sticking to their standard of strict Christian
neutrality, the Witnesses did not "Heil Hitler" or become in any way involved
with his political system.

In the United States in 1940, the Supreme Court upheld compulsory flag saluting
in public schools.  This led to nationwide outbursts of violence against
Jehovah's Witnesses.  The violent attacks were so numerious that Mrs. Elanor
Roosevelt pleaded with the public to stop.  Francis Biddle, the U.S. solicitor
general, said in a coast-to-coast radio broadcast that the atrocities committed
against Jehovah's Witnesses would not be tolerated.  These words fell on deaf
ears.  Mobs thrust flags in front of Witnesses wherever they were found, and
demanded that they salute.  When the Witnesses did not, they were treated in
any of the following manners:  assaulted, beaten, kidnapped, driven out of 
towns, counties and states, tarred and feathered, forced to drink castor oil,
tied together and chased like dumb beasts through the streets, castrated and
maimed, taunted and insulted by crowds, jailed by the hundreds without charge
and held incommunicado and denied the privilege of conferring with relatives,
friends or lawyers.  Many other hundreds were jailed and held in so-called
'protective custody'.  Some were shot or beaten unconcious.  Many had their
clothes torn from them, their Bibles and other literature siezed and publicly
burned.  Their cars, trailers, homes and places of assembly were wrecked and
set afire.  From 1940 to 1944 there were over 2,500 cases of mob violence
against Jehovah's Witnesses.  As in Germany, all this was a result of their
strict Christian neutrality.

In no country have Jehovah's Witnesses advocated or become involved in sedition,
subversion, or overthrow of any government.  They obey the laws of the land
where they don't conflict with God's laws.  They pay all taxes they owe.  They
don't act violently towards anybody.  They are dedicated to serving Almighty
God, Jehovah, and to doing his will to the best of their abilities.

In the past few years, I have come to learn of the persecution the Witnesses
have endured since the 1880's, and it is nothing short of horrendous.  The kind
of faith and integrity they show under such conditions is inspiring.  That I am
now counted as one of them is truly a wonderful blessing and privilege.


Steve

re Note 732.64 by COMET::HAYESJ:

> In the United States in 1940, the Supreme Court upheld compulsory flag saluting
> in public schools.  This led to nationwide outbursts of violence against
> Jehovah's Witnesses.  ... Mobs thrust flags in front of Witnesses wherever they
> were found, and demanded that they salute.  When the Witnesses did not, they
> were treated in any of the following manners:  

        Our nation is a jealous god and will tolerate any gods that
        take absolute priority above it.

        Fortunately for most Christians, their God sits comfortably
        alongside the god of the nation.

        Bob

  .65  Bob


    >-< you just don't have one of those convenient forms of Christianit >-

  What's a "convenient" form of Christianity?  One that compromises its 
  standards?


       >Our nation is a jealous god and will tolerate any gods that
       >take absolute priority above it.

  I'm not too sure what you're saying here.


       >Fortunately for most Christians, their God sits comfortably
       >alongside the god of the nation.

  See Luke 4:5,6 to see who the god of the nations is.


  Steve

    .66  I'm not Bob. (Ever notice how often notes start like this? ;-})
    But, I would say a "convenient" form of Christianity is that which
    rationalizes complacency and complicity.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

 Re .33

 How do the Jehovah's Witnesses intrerpret Revelation 20:10-15?




> 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
>    and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and 
>    shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 

> 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from 
>    whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found 
>    no place for them. 

> 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the 
>    books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book 
>    of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were 
>    written in the books, according to their works. 

> 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell 
>    delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged 
>    every man according to their works. 

> 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the 
>    second death. 
> 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast 
>    into the lake of fire. 

    re 732.68 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
>                                -< Ref: 768.33 >-
>
> Re .33
>
> How do the Jehovah's Witnesses intrerpret Revelation 20:10-15?
    
    	This reply is just a placeholder to say that I've composed a
    detailed (3 part) reply to this, but it still needs a little editing
    that I won't get to today.
    
    	Stay tuned.
    
    							-mark.

    Okay.  I've got a question for you.  I've heard that Jehovah's
    Witnesses refrain from running for elected public office.  Is
    this true?
    
    Also, do Witnesses vote in public elections?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re .70 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>    Okay.  I've got a question for you.  I've heard that Jehovah's
>    Witnesses refrain from running for elected public office.  Is
>    this true?
    
    	Yes.  [This was true of the earliest Christians, too.]
    
    	[Besides, who but other Witnesses would vote for us?  If,
    hypothetically, a Witness won an election, he'd naturally set policy in
    harmony with his Witness views.  Would YOU want to live under the rules
    of a government that are dictated by Jehovah's Witnesses?  As far as I
    can tell, the only people who want to live under Witness authority are
    Jehovah's Witnesses, and really, we're happy to confine our 'authority'
    over others to our own congregational arrangement.]
    
>    Also, do Witnesses vote in public elections?
    
    	No.  Except for another Witness, who would we vote for? 
    
    	Need I say more?  :-)
    
    								-mark.
    
    p.s. There are a lot of Scriptural reasons at the heart of our stand on
    politics; but I won't go into them unless you ask.

>>    Okay.  I've got a question for you.  I've heard that Jehovah's
>>    Witnesses refrain from running for elected public office.  Is
>>    this true?
>    
>    	Yes.  [This was true of the earliest Christians, too.]

    From what I understand, there weren't too many elections back
    then.  Also, person standing out as a Christian was a life-long
    proposition, if you know what I mean...

    Tom

    OK ... the next 3 replies are my reply to the question on the verses
    from Revelation 20.  Although each reply exceeds 100 lines (but not 200
    lines), I felt that breaking them up further would make it harder to
    follow my train of thought, which is to say that I think each reply
    stands on its own, but smaller breaks would make some of my points get
    lost.
    
    								-mark.

    re 732.68 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)

>                                -< Ref: 768.33 >-
> How do the Jehovah's Witnesses intrerpret Revelation 20:10-15?

    Given the reference to Phil Yerkess's note 768.33, I assume your
    question was sparked by Phil's comment that although he believes "hell" 
    does exist (for a certain definition of hell), he doesn't believe that
    it's "fiery".

> 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
>    and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and 
>    shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 

    	The "lake of fire" is explained in verse 14 (which you also quoted)
    as being "the second death".  The overall passage describes a final
    judgement of eternal life [if a person is "found written in the book of
    life"] or eternal death, i.e., "second death", which is the form of
    death from which no resurrection is possible.

        This passage is describing a real, future happening, but it's doing
    so in symbolic terms.  After all, although we probably agree that the
    devil is a real spirit being, and we could argue whether the "false
    prophet" is a person or a symbol for a class of people that mislead
    people like a false prophet, we probably can both agree that the
    "beast" that is thrown into the "lake of fire" isn't a literal beast
    or animal, but instead is a symbol for some beastlike aspect of
    humanity (and again, we could probably argue about whether it's a
    person or a class of people -- but the point is that it's not a literal
    beast, right?).  

> 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the 
>    second death. 
> 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast 
>    into the lake of fire. 

        Again, we can also probably agree that the "book of life" is not
    necessarily a literal book with pages, a front and back cover and
    binding, and literal writing in it (or that it's not a literal scroll
    made of papyrus or animal skin, since they didn't actually have bound
    "books" as we know them today).  Rather, it represents God's ability to
    know by name all those worthy of life, and it testifies to the fact
    that at the time this scripture is fulfilled, people WILL be judged
    individually.

    	Since both "death and hell" (KJV) are said to be cast into this
    lake of fire, there must be a difference between "hell" and "the lake
    of fire", just as we recognize that there is a difference between death
    and hell (though we might say that they are connected, in that a person
    gets into "hell" by dying).  Although the Bible says the "lake of fire"
    is ... well ... a "lake" of "fire" -- and we might argue whether it's a
    real lake of real fire -- it's still distinct from "hell," and in this
    context, "hell" itself isn't a place of fire.

        What is the "hell" mentioned here?  As verse 13 shows:

> 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell 
>    delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged 
>    every man according to their works. 

    "hell" is a place on par with "the sea" which contains the bodies of
    dead people, and on par with "death" itself which might well be taken
    to signify the breaking of the hold sin has on mankind (for sin leads
    to death, and one day sin will be no more; thus we might say that death
    will eventually release its hold on the living).

        Really, in this context, "hell" represents the earth, or dry land
    in which people are buried; thus we learn that this resurrection
    involves a broad class of people who have died, whether on land or in
    the sea, whether they have a grave and remains in a known location or
    not.  [This helps us see that God's ability to resurrect the dead
    doesn't depend on the continued existence of any part of the original
    body, like the skeleton; for some rabbinical writings teach that the
    bones of the dead are involved in the resurrection -- and thus are
    sacred -- because God will one day literally reclothe them with flesh
    in fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy which describes just that, bones
    being recovered in living flesh.]

    	Since in the next chapter of Revelation, the Bible promises that

    		"...death shall be no more ..." (21:4 RSV)

    what is said here about "death" being thrown into the "lake of fire"
    (which, is also explained as "second death") must mean that (human)
    death will one day be eliminated [because again, sin, which causes
    death, will have been wiped out, and the wicked who cause death will
    have been annihilated].  Human death will, effectively, be 'destroyed',
    thus fulfilling the words of Paul:

    		"the last enemy to be destroyed is death."
    		 (1Cor 15:36 RSV)

    Earlier in Rev 20, we're told concerning those who receive the "first
    resurrection" (v6) that "over such the second death has no power" (v6
    RSV).  Much earlier, in Rev 2, death and second death are contrasted
    for the faithful:

            "Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the
            crown of life.  ... He who conquers shall not be
            hurt by the second death."  (2:10b,11b RSV)

    What we might call the "first death" of the faithful isn't a death that
    leads to a swim in the lake of fire; it's merely a state (of "sleep";
    cf 1Th 4:13,14,15) the faithful must endure until they receive the 
    "crown of life" in the resurrection when the "last trumpet" sounds.

        Thus, it makes the most sense to interpret the expression "lake of
    fire" as figurative for the destructive power of something like a lake
    of fire to totally annihilate, since it's not the "lake" itself that
    "holds power" over a person, but the state of death or total
    destruction (and/or it's potential).  "Second death" is therefore
    evidently the state of ultimate destruction or elimination of a person,
    thing, or condition (like sin).  Those "hurt by the second death"
    simply have no similar hope of ever being resurrected again.

    [continued in next reply]

	[continued from previous reply]

        This part deals with the meaning of the "torment" mentioned in
    v.10.  

        "Torment" certainly does make many people think of conscious
    anguish or torture, and there are some usages of the term that indicate
    just that (but mainly torment of the living).  However, I think the
    best way to explain it is to consider how Revelation speaks of
    "torment" of the parties involved in earlier passages, and what
    Revelation tells us about their fate in other descriptions.

    	In Rev 14, two proclamations of judgment are declared by angels:

    		  Another angel, a second, followed saying, 
    		"Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who 
    		made all nations drink the wine of her impure 
    		passions."
    		  And another angel, a third, followed them,
    		saying with a loud voice, "If any one worships
    		the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his 
    		forehead or hand, he also shall drink the wine of
    		God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his
    		anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and 
    		sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and
    		in the precense of the lamb.  And the smoke of
    		their torment goes up for ever and ever; and
    		they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers
    		of the beast and its image, and whoever receives
    		the mark of its name."  (vs 8-11 RSV)

    What follows is a brief trace of what Revelation says about the fate of
    "Babylon the great" and those who follow the "beast and its image" in
    later passages.  Why consider them together?  Because their judgments
    have similar  aspects (as Revelation goes on to show).  Both involve
    "torment" (though torment is not specifically mentioned in the first
    mention of "Babylon the great's" judgment in 14:8).

    	[NOTE: at this point, we're obviously talking about several
    symbolic figures without discussing their real identities.  Although
    they must have real identities, I think for now it's sufficient to
    refer only to the symbols and the general characteristics of real
    people and groups that they must portray.  The actual outcome of the 
    real people/groups portrayed symbolically must reasonably correspond to
    the outcome of the symbolic figures once we arrive at the best literal
    interpretation of all the symbolic language.]

    	In Rev 16, the "dragon" and the "beast" are said to be responsible
    for sending forth:

    		"demonic spirits, performing signs, who go
    		abroad to the kings of the whole world, to
    		assemble them for the battle on the great
    		day of God the Almighty" (v.14 RSV)

    The place they are said to be gathered to "is called in Hebrew
    Armageddon" (v.16).  This battle evidently has a relationship to the
    judgment against "Babylon the great", for a few verses later, it's
    judgment is again mentioned:

    		"... and God remembered great Babylon, to make
    		her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath."

    It seems reasonable to say that the "kings of the earth" who follow 
    the "demonic spirits" sent by the dragon and the beast are, in effect,
    those who are said to be "worshipping" the beast in chp 14.  Thus it
    seems safe to say Rev 16 is talking about the same parties whom the
    angels declared judgment against in chp 14.


    	The destruction of Babylon the great, also called "the harlot" is
    first described in detail in Rev 17:15:

    		"And the ten horns you saw, they and the beast
    		will hate the harlot: they will make her desolate
    		and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her
    		up with fire ..." (RSV)

    In some way, the "beast" turns on the "harlot," and she is "devoured" 
    and "burn[ed] ... up with fire".

        In Chapter 18, this destruction is hailed by "another angel" (v.1).
    after which "another voice" says:

    		"Render to her has she herself has rendered...
    		As she glorified herself and played the wanton,
    		so give her a like measure of torment and
    		mourning.  Since in her heart she says, 'A
    		queen I sit, I am no widow, mourning shall
    		I never see,' so shall her plagues come in a
    		single day, pestilence and mourning and famine,
    		and she shall be burned with fire; ..."
    		(vs 6a,7-8a RSV)

    Here we read that the "measure of torment and mourning" to be measured
    out would be delivered in "a single day" (though Babylon's 'playing the
    queen' evidently went on for some time), the end result [as described
    already] being that "she shall be burned with fire" (which is what 
    ancient conquerors did to enemy cities when they destroyed them).

    	Babylon's "torment" is mentioned again as the reaction of various
    on-lookers are described:

    		"And the kings of the earth .... will weep
    		and wail over her when they see the smoke
    		of her burning; they will stand far off,
    		in fear of her torment, and say, 'Alas!
    		alas! thou great city, Babylon!  In one
    		hour has thy judgment come.'"  (18:9,10 RSV)

    Here again, the "torment" is related to the quick, firey destruction of
    Babylon.   The aspect of conscious (eternal) torment of individuals 
    doesn't enter the picture.

    	The "merchants" are also said to

    		"stand far off, in fear of her torment, weeping
    		and mourning aloud" (v.15)

    again taking note of the speed of the destruction, that, 

    		"In one hour all this wealth has been laid waste."
    		(v.17)

    Likewise, 

    		"all the shipmasters and seafaring men ... stood
    		far off and cried out as they saw the smoke
    		of her burning" (v.17)

    They also took note of the speed of the destruction:  "In one hour she
    has been laid waste." (v19)

    	Finally, "a mighty angel" is seen, who illustrates the destruction
    of Babylon the great in yet another way:

    		"[the angel] took up a mighty stone like a
    		millstone and threw it into the sea, saying,
    		  "So shall Babylon the great city be thrown
    		   down with violence, and shall be found
    		   no more ..."  (v.21)

    From the angels dramatized illustration, it's clear that the symbolic 
    city, Babylon the great, is destroyed quickly, and forever.

    	One final time, the eternal destruction of Babylon is mentioned:

    		"The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever"
    		(19:3 RSV).

    Since an angel previously declared that "Babylon the great city ...
    shall be found no more", it's obvious that it wouldn't be kept in
    existence for the mere sake of having it "smoke" forever.  Also, being
    thrown into the sea and smoking forever can't both be literally true;
    therefore both depictions are obviously symbolic

        Why say it will symbolically "smoke ... for ever and ever?"  To
    indicate that it would never be rebuilt.  Again, in ancient days, it
    wasn't unusually for once conquered and burned cities to be rebuilt
    after a time, with the new city being built right on top of the ruins
    of the old.  Naturally, this rebuilding could only take place once the
    fire and smoldering was out.  That Babylon smokes forever [due to
    adverse judgment] depicts the impossibility of it ever being rebuilt --
    meaning that whatever "harlot" "Babylon the great" represents will
    never reappear again as an aspect of human society.

    	Although the Bible doesn't say it directly, since Babylon is said
    to "smoke ... forever", and firey judgment is said to be a "torment"
    for the city, you could say that Babylon the great, once destroyed,
    will also be "tormented forever" -- though its "torment"  clearly isn't
    one of conscious suffering.  "Smoke" and "torment" are juxtaposed as
    synomyms as evidence of her final destruction.

    [continued in next reply]

        [continued from previous reply]

    	After discussing the destruction of "Babylon the great" in some
    detail, Revelation turns its attention to the judgment of the "beast",
    the "false prophet", and the "kings of the earth" who were gathered by
    the "demonic spirits" sent out by the "beast" and its "image".  It
    says:

    		"And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth
    		with their armies gathered to make war against
    		him who sits upon the horse and against his army.
    		And the beast was captured, and with it the
    		false prophet who in its presence has deceived
    		those who had received the mark of the beast and
    		those who worshiped its image.  These two were
    		thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns
    		with sulphur."  (Rev 19:19,20 RSV)

    Witnesses and some orthodox commentators (like those of the Oxford
    Annotated RSV) consider the "false prophet" and the "image" of the
    beast which is worshipped to be the same thing; thus the "beast and its
    image" who are mentioned first in Rev 14, and later in Rev 20, are here 
    judged and sentenced to the "lake of fire."  [NOTE that initially, Rev
    14 doesn't say the beast and its image would be tormented with fire and
    sulphur; it only speaks this way of those who receive the mark for 
    worshipping its image.]

    	Revelation then says of those who "received the mark of the beast
    and those who worshipped its image" (v.20):

    		"And the rest were slain by the sword of him who
    		sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from
    		his mouth; and all the birds [cf v.17,18] were 
    		gorged with their flesh.  (v.21 RSV)

    The "kings of the earth and their armies" (v.19), are simply said to be
    killed and eaten.  Since they're killed and not buried (cf. Jer 25:33),
    they're evidently not in either "the sea" or "hell" which later gives
    up its dead.

        As mentioned earlier, Rev 14 said they would be:

    		"tormented with fire and sulphur ... and the smoke
    		of their torment [like the smoke of Babylon the
    		great's torment] goes up for ever and ever".

    	Now, the fact they are polished off by the birds signifies their
    complete annihilation; thus they couldn't ALSO remain around to be
    literally tormented with fire and sulphur as well.  But the fact is
    that Revelation applies both types of language to them; thus the
    "torment with fire and sulphur" which lasts "for ever and ever" must
    simply represents the irreversability of the final judgment against
    them, as it did for "Babylon the great."

        In the real world, fire destroys that which is thrown into it.
    A fire of destruction that is kept burning for a long time (like
    forever) would surely prevent the reconstruction or reconstitution of
    the thing being burned (cf. Jude 7 re Sodom and Gomorrah).  Thus, those
    who "worship the beast and its image" are eternally annihilated; their
    return to life is as impossible as it would be to recover anything
    thrown into a literal lake of fire.

    ==*==

    	Rev 20 describes the 1000 year imprisonment of Satan,; at the same
    time Jesus and those who receive the "first resurrection" reign as
    "kings and priests" (v.6) over the earth.  Next the 1000 years are said
    to be up, and Satan gets let loose for mislead people again.  Although
    he evidently will be allowed some measure of success, the final end of
    Satan and those who follow him at that time are then described:

    		"but fire came down from heaven and consumed them
    		[i.e., the humans who follow Satan], and the devil
    		who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of
    		fire and sulphur where the beast and the false
    		prophet were, and they will be tormented day and
    		night."  (v.10 RSV)

    Again, the humans involved are said to be destroyed, this time by "fire
    [which] came down from heaven and consumed them".  Since this fire is
    said to "consume them", it surely means that nothing would literally
    remain of them thereafter.

        It's interesting to note that whenever the judgment of humans is
    described in Rev., with the exception of 20:15, the humans are NOT said
    to be "thrown into the lake of fire".  Other language is used which
    describes judgment by fire and sulphur (though not a lake), and other
    language is further used to indicate complete destruction. 
    Additionally, in all the other places where the "lake of fire" is
    mentioned, those thrown into it are either the likes of the devil
    (i.e., spirit beings) or symbolically identified figures like the
    "beast" and "false prophet", or even more abstract things like "death"
    and "hell".

    	However, since humans are said to be thrown into "the lake of fire"
    in 20:15, as it IS evidently applied to people who are judged during
    the general resurrection, it seems reasonable to equate permanant human
    destruction at all times to being thrown into the lake of fire.
    That "death" and "hell" are also thrown into it makes it evident that it 
    is more of a condition than an actual place.
    
	    Witnesses and various commentators also equate the "lake of fire" 
    to the "Gehenna" that Jesus figuratively spoke about (cf. Matt 18:8,9);
    the literal Gehenna being the valley of Hinnom which abutted Jerusalem,
    which was used as garbage dump, and as such was literally kept burning
    to consume what was thrown into it.  This harmonizes with Jesus'
    earlier words that the "goats" of his parable would be sentenced to:

    		"Depart from me ... into the eternal fire
    		prepared for the devil and his angels."
    		(Matt 25:41 RSV).

    The casting of the "goats" into eternal fire, as well as the casting of
    "the devil and his angels" into it, was to be a future event.  Jesus'
    parable and its conclusion was evidently merely another (earlier) way
    of depicting the adverse judgments that are more fully described in 
    Revelation.

        A person cannot be eternally destroyed AND be consciously tormented
    forever.  The Bible does use the word "torment" in connection with the
    eternal punishment of adverse judgment, but it also uses plain
    expressions often enough to make the point that the wicked ARE to
    suffer "eternal destruction" (e.g. 1Thes 1:9 RSV).  Therefore,
    Witnesses  believe the truth to be that "eternal destruction" is just
    that, eternal destruction; and consequently, the "torment" (of "fire
    and sulphur") that the wicked are said to suffer in symbolic language
    is more figurative, expressing the notion that the final punishment of
    wicked spirits and humans is never to be lifted, such that they will
    never come to life thereafter.


    							  -mark sornson.

   Interesting (I haven't yet read all of the 3 replies) that Jehovah's 
   Witnesses take the lake of fire, book of life, etc as being symbolic, but
   take the 144000 for example, as literal.





  Jim

    re .77 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
>   Interesting (I haven't yet read all of the 3 replies) that Jehovah's 
>   Witnesses take the lake of fire, book of life, etc as being symbolic, but
>   take the 144000 for example, as literal.
    
    	Are you saying then that everything in the book of Revelation is
    either all literal or all symbolic -- that there's no "middle ground"
    to allow for some things being literal and some things being symbolic?
    [For instance, do you take the existence of a 7-headed, 10-horned beast
    to be literal, or any other of the beasts described in Revelation?]
    
    	Obviously the many-times-over mention of Jesus in the Bible are to
    be taken literally (as in, Jesus is a literal being) ... yet there are
    obvious symbolisms regarding him, such as that he rides on a "white
    horse" and has a "long sword" coming out of his mouth, or that he is
    the "lamb of God".
    
    ==**==
    
    	As (I hope) you can see, the Witness view on the symbolic nature of
    the "lake of fire" isn't arbitrary (i.e. pulled out of the air).  There
    ARE reasons for it.
    
    	Just wondering ... since you take the "lake of fire" to be literal,
    do YOU also take the 144,000 to be literal?
    
    
    
    								-mark.

RE:    <<< Note 732.78 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

    
.    	Just wondering ... since you take the "lake of fire" to be literal,
.    do YOU also take the 144,000 to be literal?
    
    
 
   Yes.

    re .79 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
>.    	Just wondering ... since you take the "lake of fire" to be literal,
>.    do YOU also take the 144,000 to be literal?
> 
>   Yes.
    
    How about that ... agreement (though in small measure).
    
    Since Rev 14 says they "have not defiled themselves with women, for
    they are chaste (ftn "virgins)" (RSV), do you believe that they are all
    virgin men?
    
    -mark.

Something that's been touched on before, but on which I'd welcome more
elaboration, particularly in light of the season (which one can hardly
ignor) is the stand of Witnesses on holidays.

Shalom,

Richard

    re .81 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>Something that's been touched on before, but on which I'd welcome more
>elaboration, particularly in light of the season (which one can hardly
>ignor) is the stand of Witnesses on holidays.
    
    	We don't celebrate 'em.  :-)
    
    
    								-mark.
    
    P.S. We do commemorate Jesus' death once a year, however.

    .82  Gosh, I didn't expect such brevity!!
    
    Okay, folks might be curious about why you don't celebrate 'em.
    Also, how do you explain the stance to your children?  What do you
    do about non-JW relatives or a non-JW spouse?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re .83 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>    .82  Gosh, I didn't expect such brevity!!
    
    Hard to believe, isn't it?  I thought I'd try a new approach.  :-)
    
>    Okay, folks might be curious about why you don't celebrate 'em.
    
    It's not that I'm shy about the subject; it's just that at times it's
    hard to talk about it without coming across as though I'm making
    accusations.
    
    Basically, we don't celebrate all the 'standard Christian holidays'
    because they 1) aren't really Biblical and 2) the connection these
    celebrations have with ancient pagan religious rites makes them
    off-limits to us (i.e., our view is that there are too many connections
    to false religion in them, even though they are nominally called
    'Christian').
    
    We also don't celebrate purely national holidays because we're
    non-political and very unnationalistic.  We feel getting involved in
    them would not only violate our political neutrality (we'd be stepping
    back into the 'world' that Jesus said we should be "no part of"), but
    compromise our world-wide unity (since they tend to foster feelings of 
    national/regional pride, and even superiority, and we feel that
    compromises the basic Bible notions that all Christians are brothers of
    equal standing everywhere, and that national boundaries are man-made
    distinctions that work against the greater universal unity that
    Christianity should foster).
    
>    Also, how do you explain the stance to your children?  
    
    We tell them the truth.  There is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny (or
    whatever), and that we don't celebrate them because these holidays
    cross the line of Biblical propriety (regarding mixing false religion
    with true).  We also tell them that most people who do celebrate them
    don't think they're doing anything wrong; but our views being what they
    are, celebrating them isn't right for us.
    
    My children are still very young, and don't appreciate all the issues
    (really, they aren't at the age of comprehending them); but we tell
    them that our stand is based on what we know to be right.  We don't
    love them less, and really we do our best to keep them from feeling
    underprivileged and left out just because we don't make a big deal over
    them on 'standard' holiday days.
    
    Our goal is to help them become spiritual people (as adults), so that
    they distinguish between genuine spirituality and religious observation
    for the mere sake of tradition (and in the case of Christmas,
    materialism).
    
>                                                           What do you
>    do about non-JW relatives or a non-JW spouse?
    
    That depends on the situation and the personalities involved. 
    Sometimes the difference is hardly a problem; and sometimes it's a
    major problem (for emotions sometimes run high and are deeply rooted).
    
    The biggest problems arise when only one spouse is a Witness. 
    Sometimes the non-Witness spouse doesn't put up a fuss; but sometimes
    they do.  The feelings of the children also come into play.  Some
    children actually do side with the Witness parent, and other's don't.
    
    In general, the Witnesses do their best to abstain from holiday
    celebrations.  What non-JW relatives do is up to them.
    
    
    -mark.

    .84  Thanks, Mark.  As you might be aware already, I asked the questions
    for informational purposes and not to refute or find fault.
    
    Your reply leads into the question of the JW stance on nationalism,
    saluting and pledging allegiance to the flag, and participation in
    the martial activity of a nation.
    
    I already have a pretty good idea of the answer, so there's no real
    rush.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

RE:    <<< Note 732.80 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>


>    Since Rev 14 says they "have not defiled themselves with women, for
>    they are chaste (ftn "virgins)" (RSV), do you believe that they are all
>    virgin men?
    
 
      Yes.  And you?




  Jim

    re .85 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>                    -< Nationalism, patriotism, militarism >-
    
    	Everything's connected ...
    
>    .84  Thanks, Mark.  As you might be aware already, I asked the questions
>    for informational purposes and not to refute or find fault.
    
    	You're welcome.
    
    	So far, I have had no problems with your approach.  I always enjoy
    exchanging replies with you.
    
>    Your reply leads into the question of the JW stance on nationalism,
>    saluting and pledging allegiance to the flag, and participation in
>    the martial activity of a nation.
    
    	It sure does.  [Now, the question is, who wants to know about
    what?]
    
    
    								-mark.

    .87  Interesting response, Mark.  I shan't press further at this
    point in time.
    
    Greetings to you and all our Jehovah's Witness guests,
    Richard
    

	Attached is a light hearted scientific study into Father Christmas.

	Phil.

posted with permission from author

*************************************************************************
IS THERE A SANTA CLAUS?

As a result of an overwhelming lack of requests, and with research help from
that renown scientific journal SPY magazine (January, 1990) - I am pleased to
present the annual scientific inquiry into Santa Claus.

1)  No known species of reindeer can fly.  BUT there are 300,000 species of
living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects
and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa
has ever seen.

2)  There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world.
BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and
Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378
million according to Population Reference Bureau.  At an average (census)
rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes.  One presumes
there's at least one good child in each.

3)  Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different
time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west
(which seems logical).  This works out to 822.6 visits per second.
This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa
has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the
chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the
tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back
into the sleigh and move on to the next house.  Assuming that each of these
91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course,
we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept),
we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2
million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once
every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000
times the speed of sound.  For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made
vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per
second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4)  The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element.  Assuming
that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds),
the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably
described as overweight.  On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more
than 300 pounds.  Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could
pull TEN TIMES the normal anoint, we cannot do the job with eight, or even
nine.  We need 214,200 reindeer.  This increases the payload - not even
counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons.
Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5)  353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air
resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as
spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere.  The lead pair of reindeer
will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy.  Per second.  Each.  In short,
they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer
behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.
The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a
second.  Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06
times greater than gravity.  A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim)
would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's
dead now.

re: Note 732.89 by Phil "bring me sunshine in your smile" 

>5)  353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air
>resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as
>spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere.  The lead pair of reindeer
>will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy.  Per second.  Each.  In short,
>they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer


Nah, that just explains Rudolph's red nose, heated up by all that friction!

.-)

Jim

    re 732.86 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>>    Since Rev 14 says they "have not defiled themselves with women, for
>>    they are chaste (ftn "virgins)" (RSV), do you believe that they are all
>>    virgin men?
>    
>      Yes.  And you?
    
    	No.
    
    	This is spiritual virginity, akin to that mentioned by Paul when he
    said to the Corinthians that his hope was to present them as "a chaste
    virgin to the Christ" (2Cor 11:4 NWT).

 

  Do you believe they are all men?






 Jim

    
    Just a quick note on Rev 20:10 as it appeared in note .68
    
    > 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
    >    and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and
    >    shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
    
    In the NIV and other Bibles, the word *are* is translated as "have been"
    or "were".
    
    This gives a completely meaning to this verse, specifically the beast
    and the false prophet are not being tormented forever, but have been
    consumed by the Lake of Fire and no longer exist.  
    
    

RE:                      <<< Note 732.93 by DEBUG::HUMPHRY >>>
                                -< Its not are >-

    
       
   . In the NIV and other Bibles, the word *are* is translated as "have been"
   . or "were".
    
     NASB has "are"


    
     Well, lets see...I can say "I met Jane and John at the grocery store
     where they have been  all day"  Does that mean they're not there
     anymore?


   

 Jim    

    
   >  In the NIV and other Bibles, the word *are* is translated as "have
   >  been" or "were"
    
   >  NASB has "are"
   >  Well, lets see...I can say "I met Jane and John at the grocery
   >  store where they have been all day" Does that mean they're not
   >  there anymore?
    
   >  Well, lets see...I can say "I met Jane and John at the grocery store
   >  where they have been  all day"  Does that mean they're not there
   >  anymore?
    
      Yes, they have been consumed by the Lake of Fire.
    
      My NKJV uses are, but the footnote states the word "were" should be
      used.  This gives a past tense meaning to the verse.   The reason
      the correct word needs to be used is because of the eternal torment
      doctrine of the unsaved.  If "are" is the correct translation then
      this is credance to eternal torment, if "were" is correct then
      the opposite applies.
    
      Kent

RE:                      <<< Note 732.93 by DEBUG::HUMPHRY >>>
                                -< Its not are >-

    
       
   > > 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
   > >    and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and
   > >    shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
    
    >In the NIV and other Bibles, the word *are* is translated as "have been"
    >or "were".
    
     After doing some study on this, I see that in the greek there is no verb
     "are" in this passage.  If we go back to 19:20 we see the point at which
     the beast and false prophet were cast alive into a lake of fire..we then
     momve to 20:10 and see that the devil was then cast in there "where the
     beast and the false prophet *are* [were cast] and shall be tormented, etc.
     One cannot possibly gather from this passasge that they were consumed by
     the lake of fire as the greek for "tormented for ever and ever" indicates
     a torment without end, and the clause indicates that they are still present
     when the devil is tossed in there.

     One can say "have been" which indicates (as in the example I gave which
     you rejected) that they are still there.."were" which indicates past
     tense is an incorrect translation.




     Jim

    It is my understanding that JW doctrine does not believe that this
    heaven and earth will pass away in the literal sense.  The area on
    which there is no discrepancy is in believing that heaven and earth
    will be inhabited after judgement.
    
    I took the liberty and pleasure of looking up all the scriptures in
    which the words fire, earth and heaven were included.. it was very
    interesting...
    
    Isaiah 45:18  For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God
    himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he 
    created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; 
    and there is none else.
    
    Isaiah 29:6  Thou shalt be visited of the LORD of hosts with thunder,
    and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and
    the flame of devouring fire.
                                                                              
    2Peter 3:13  Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for
    new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
    
    Revelation 21:1  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
    heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
    
    2Peter 3:7  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same
    word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and
    perdition of ungodly men.
    
    Isaiah 29:6  Thou shalt be visited of the LORD of hosts with
    thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and
    the flame of devouring fire.
                                                                                   
    Revelation 8:5  And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire
    of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and
    thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.
    
After reading these scriptures, I can see where both views have 
developed around this earth and this heaven.  On the one side you have 
the JWs who believe that this earth and this heaven will be purified by 
fire and not destroyed.  And on the other hand you have the side that 
believes the fire will destroy and God will form a literal new heaven 
and new earth.  


    

re .97

	Nancy, 

	Thanks for sharing both views, it would help if you could expand on
	your own viewpoint, especially explaining the purpose of God creating 
	a new literal earth and heavens (I guess you believe it to refer to the
	celestial bodies).

	Btw check out note 801.14 regarding 2 Peter 3:7 and how Peter explained
	that this would follow a similar pattern to that of the flood account.

	If time permits I'll expand on the Jehovah's Witness view tomorrow.

	Phil.

    re .97 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
    Your entry was a nice contribution to this string.
    
>    It is my understanding that JW doctrine does not believe that this
>    heaven and earth will pass away in the literal sense.  The area on
>    which there is no discrepancy is in believing that heaven and earth
>    will be inhabited after judgement.
    
    Correct on both counts.
    
>    2Peter 3:7  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same
>    word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and
>    perdition of ungodly men.
    
    This is an interesting scripture because it's the second half of a
    contrast between "the heavens and the earth which are now" and the
    "heavens [which] existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water"
    (2Pet 3:5 RSV) -- namely the pre-Flood world of Noah.  In verse 6,
    Peter calls the combination of that former 'heavens and earth' "the
    world that then existed [which] was deluged and perished" (RSV).
    
    The literal planet earth and the literal heavens from that time still
    exist, thus the 'end of a/the world' doesn't necessarily mean the
    literal destruction of the planet and heavens.  Instead, what perished
    were the "ungodly men" (v.7) that existed back then, as well as the
    ungodly way in which they governed themselves (which was influenced by
    the demons, who happen to be influencing today's world as well; cf. Eph
    6:12).
    
    According to the Bible, that ancient world was literally judged with
    water.  How much literal fire will be used in the judgment of this
    wicked world remains to be seen [for 2Thes 1:7 says "the Lord Jesus
    [will be] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire" 
    (RSV) ... but again, other scriptures promise that "the earth remains
    for ever" (Eccl 1:4 RSV)].  
    
    -mark.

    re .92 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>  Do you believe they are all men?
    
    	No; but then, I also don't believe that the collective "bride of
    Christ" is all made up of women either.
    
    	In addition to what we've already said about the characteristics
    of the 144,000, Revelation also says of them that:
    
    		* they "had been redeemed from the earth" (14:3 RSV)
    		* they "follow the Lamb whereever he goes" (14:4 RSV)
    		* they "have been redeemed from mankind as 
    		  first fruits for God and the Lamb" (14:4 RSV)
    		* "in their mouth no lie was found, for they
    		  are spotless" (14:5 RSV)
    		* they have been "sealed the servants of
    		  our God [with the seal] upon their foreheads" (7:3 RSV)
    		* "on Mount Zion [they] stood with the Lamb" ...
    		  and had "his name and his Father's name written
    		  on their foreheads" (Rev 14:1)
    
    Why I call attention to these other characteristics is that other
    passages of the NT ALSO use these phrases to describe Christians who
    are obviously not all men.
    
    	A particular example of this is in James.  James wrote collectively
    to "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (1:1 RSV), of whom the Oxford
    Annotated RSV points out:
    
    		"[the term twelve tribes ...] testifies to the 
    		church's sense of being a pilgrim people as well 
    		as the heir of Israel"
    
    which is to say that he was writing to the whole Christian church of
    that time.  To them he pointed out that:
    
    		"he [Christ] brought us forth by the word
    		of truth that we should be a king of first
    		fruits of his creatures." (1:18 RSV).
    
    Since James was really writing to both the men AND women in the church
    of that time, it's implicit that the "first fruits" who were selected
    as such by God through Christ were NOT just men.  Witnesses believe
    that this reference to those in the church as "first fruits" and the
    144,000 as being "first fruits" correspond, and refer to the same group
    of people (both men and women).
    
    	As we see, even BEFORE the number of those "sealed" was revealed
    (in Revelation) and spoken of as being taken out of the twelve tribes
    of Israel, the Christians viewed themselves to be the new "twelve
    tribes ...", although they were actually a mix of both natural Jews and
    Gentiles. In fact, Paul argued extensively that under the Christian
    arrangement, God was no longer showing particular (or exclusive) favor
    to natural Jews, saying:
    
    	"There is no distinction between Jew and Greek"  (Rom 10:12 RSV)
    	"... those who are called [are] both Jews and Greeks" (1Cor 1:24 RSV)
    	"There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28 RSV -- also note;
    		"... neither MALE nor FEMALE; for you are all
    		one in Christ Jesus ... heirs according to the
    		promise" -- vs. 28,29)
    	"There cannot be Greek and Jew ..." (Col 3:11 RSV)
    
    but still, being a Jew in a SPIRITUAL sense was predominant:
    
    	"For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor
    	is true circumcision something external and physical.
    	He is a Jew who in one INWARDLY, and real circumcision
    	is a matter of the heart, SPIRITUAL and NOT LITERAL."
    	(Rom 2:28,29 RSV -- emphasis added)
    
    	Also prior to Revelation, the Bible speaks of those who are "sealed
    with the promised Holy Spirit" (Eph 1:14; cf also 2Cor 1:22), who are
    awaiting their "inheritance" (Eph 1:14 RSV) -- this inheritance being
    the same one spoken of in Gal 3:29, which is not just restricted to
    literal Jewish men.  Again, Witnesses view this "seal" and the one
    spoken of in Revelation as applying to the 144,000 to correspond, being
    the same thing.
    
    	Of further note on the matter of inheritance, Peter spoke of the
    "inheritance ... kept in heaven for you" (1Pet 1:4 RSV).  He was
    addressing "the exiles of the Dispersion ..." (1:1), which evidently
    corresponds to the same Dispersion of Christians spoken of by James
    [the Oxford Annotated RSV ftn. on 1Pet 1:1 points to James 1:1].  Since
    Peter was explicitly addressing women ("wives" 3:1) in addition to men,
    it's clear again that the special "inheritance" of those "sealed" was
    not limitted to men.
    
    	In summary, Witnesses believe that those who are 'spiritual Jews',
    being both men and women, those who are "sealed with holy spirit" with
    the promise of a heavenly "inheritance," and the 144,000 who are
    likewise "sealed" are all the same group of people.  What is said about
    them in any isolated verse just happens to focus in one one or two
    particular characteristics (real or figurative) of the group.
    
    
    								-mark.

    
>    	In summary, Witnesses believe that those who are 'spiritual Jews',
>    being both men and women, those who are "sealed with holy spirit" with
>    the promise of a heavenly "inheritance," and the 144,000 who are
>    likewise "sealed" are all the same group of people.  What is said about
>    them in any isolated verse just happens to focus in one one or two
>    particular characteristics (real or figurative) of the group.
 


     Verses 5-8 of Revelation 7 clearly spells out the tribes of Israel from
     which the 144000 are drawn, does it not?


     And, assuming your interpretation of the 144,000 is correct, when did the
     "window" for becoming one of the 144,000 open, and when does this "window" 
     close?





 Jim

    re .101 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>     Verses 5-8 of Revelation 7 clearly spells out the tribes of Israel from
>     which the 144000 are drawn, does it not?
    
    	It's true that it is pretty specific, 12,000 each from:
    
    			Judah
    			Reuben
    			Gad
    			Asher
    			Naphtali
    			Manasseh
    			Simeon
    			Levi
    			Issachar
    			Zebulun
    			Joseph
    			Benjamin
    
    but it's at least interesting to note that this list isn't exactly the
    same as either the original 12 sons of Jacob or the 'legal' landed
    twelve tribes (identified in Numbers chp 1):
    
    		Sons of Jacob		Landed tribes (* Levi not included)
    		=============		=============
    		Reuben			Reuben
    		Simeon			Simeon
    		Levi			Judah
    		Judah			Issachar
    		Dan			Zebulun
    		Naphtali		Ephraim		* son of Joseph
    		Gad			Manasseh	* son of Joseph
    		Asher			Benjamin
    		Issachar		Dan
    		Zebulun			Asher
    		Joseph			Gad
    		Benjamin		Naphtali
    
    In Revelation 7, Dan is missing, Levi is included, and both Joseph and 
    Manasseh are listed (omitting Ephraim).  Revelation doesn't explain the
    difference, but we are assured in the other NT scriptures [like the
    ones I already mentioned] that God was from then on selecting
    'spiritual Jews' rather than just fleshly Jews.
    
    	It was true that the original fleshly twelve tribes had the hope of
    God's special promise to make them a sacred nation fulfilled in a
    Messianic sense, for Paul (speaking as a Jew) said to King Agrippa:
    
    		"now I stand here on trial for hope in the 
    		promise made by God to our fathers, to which
    		our twelve [fleshly] tribes hope to attain,
    		as they earnestly worship night and day." 
    		(Act 26:7 RSV)
    
    But Jesus had said in condemnation of the literal Jewish nation:
    
    		"... the kingdom of God will be taken away
    		from you and given to a nation producing
    		the fruits of it."  (Matt 21:43 RSV)
    
    Confirming this change, Peter wrote to the 'Christian Dispersion'
    (mentioned in my previous reply), applying to them a quote that 
    once applied only to literal Israel:
    
    		"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood,
    		a holy nation, God own people ... Once you
    		were no people but now you are God's people ..."
    		(1Pet 2:9a,10a RSV -- ref Ex 19:5,6; Hos 1:10)
    
    Taking all the above into consideration, interpretting the 12 tribes of
    Rev 7 to be literal Jews represents a step backwards with respect to
    God's [new] covenants, since all of the Christian writings indicate that 
    the barriers between Jew and non-Jew were no longer of consequence in the
    Christian arrangement.
    
    	One final thought is that what was fulfilled upon the Christians
    was well understood to be the fulfilment to "the promises [which] were
    made to Abraham and to his offspring" (Gal 3:16a RSV), who were
    explained to be both "Christ" (v.16) and the early Christian
    brotherhood: "YOU then are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the
    promise" (Gal 3:29 RSV).  The Galatians in particular were NOT all
    Jews, thus they were NOT all literal "offspring of Abraham".  However,
    since this privilege is clearly attributed to all of them, the point is
    obviously that being counted as one of "Abraham's offspring" -- which
    is what the original twelve tribes were -- is a matter of choice by
    God.  A Christian can become a "spiritual Jew" by direct assignment by
    God [or in other terms, being born again as one of Christ's brothers
    through the anointing of holy spirit, which becomes a "token" (NWT) or
    "guarantee" (RSV) of that special inheritance -- Eph 1:14].  Thus, one
    can likewise be a member of one of the "tribes" of Revelation without
    being a literal Jew, as "Abraham's offspring" have clearly been
    spiritualized under the New Covenant.
    
>     And, assuming your interpretation of the 144,000 is correct, when did the
>     "window" for becoming one of the 144,000 open, and when does this "window"
>     close?
    
    	The "window" opened up at Pentacost right after Jesus' death (Acts
    2:1-4ff).  It closes when the last one is chosen by God.  Witnesses
    believe that God left the number open until our time-frame, that he
    might complete the "remnant" in the last days.  The anointed 'spiritual
    Israeltes" at that time would be collected together as a body and be
    the collective spokesman for the "Bride" who would invite people
    everywhere to  "come ... and take the water of life without price" (Rev
    22:17 RSV).  
    
    	Not everyone is privileged to be part of the "Bride"; but all not
    of the Bride have the potential to be blessed by that "marriage", for
    the promise to Abraham that Paul explained in Gal was:
    
    		"by your descendants [i.e. his spiritual
    		"offspring"] shall all the nations of the
    		earth bless themselves ..." (Gen 22:18a RSV)
    
    Though only 144,000 are privileged to receive a heavenly inheritance in
    fulfillment of this promise, Revelation 7 also promises that 
    
    		"a great multitude which no man could number, 
    		from every nation, from all tribes and peoples
    		and tongues" ... [would] "come out of the
    		great tribulation" [as servants of God and 
    		followers of the Lamb] (Rev 7:9,14,15-17 RSV)
    
    thus "all the nations" apart from the special 'spiritual nation of
    Israel' have the hope of great blessings.  More than 99% of Jehovah's
    Witnesses today consider themselves to be members of the "great
    multitude".  Only a small faction profess to be of the 144,000.
    
    	From your perspective, do you know anyone who can honestly say that
    he (or she) is either one of the "144,000" or one of "the great
    multitude"?  If not, when will their identities be made known?  Are you
    one of either group?
    
    
    								-mark.

    re 732.100 (by myself)
    
>    		"he [Christ] brought us forth by the word
>    		of truth that we should be a king of first
                                             ^^^^
>    		fruits of his creatures." (1:18 RSV).
    
    That should be "... kinD of first fruits ..."

>    Though only 144,000 are privileged to receive a heavenly inheritance in
>    fulfillment of this promise, Revelation 7 also promises that 
 


   
>    		"a great multitude which no man could number, 
>    		from every nation, from all tribes and peoples
>    		and tongues" ... [would] "come out of the
>    		great tribulation" [as servants of God and 
>    		followers of the Lamb] (Rev 7:9,14,15-17 RSV)
    
    
         You neglected to include the statement in Rev 7:9 that states
         that this great multitude was standing before (in front of) the
         throne of God and before the Lamb, which to me says the great 
         multitude was in Heaven assuming that is where God's throne is.
         Verse 15 also states they are before the throne of God and they
         serve Him night and day in His temple. 

         Rev 19:1 also refers to the multitude being in Heaven.

         Please show me where in the scripture the great multitude is
         exempt from Heaven, and relegated to life on earth.
  



     >  Only a small faction profess to be of the 144,000.
    
        Where is the scriptural criteria for attaining such an honor?
    


     more later..


 Jim

    
>    In Revelation 7, Dan is missing, Levi is included, and both Joseph and 
>    Manasseh are listed (omitting Ephraim).  Revelation doesn't explain the
 
     I'll confess to my incomplete knowledge of the Old Testament, but weren't
     the tribes of Dan and Ephraim pretty much wiped out due to their idolatry?
     
       
   > 	The "window" opened up at Pentacost right after Jesus' death (Acts
   > 2:1-4ff).  It closes when the last one is chosen by God.  Witnesses
        
    
      What about Old Testament saints?  Are they excluded from the 144,000
      and therefore not in Heaven?


    
>    Though only 144,000 are privileged to receive a heavenly inheritance in
     
     
     Ephesians 2:19 "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
     but *fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God*" 
     (Ehphasis mine)..no mention of 144,000 select members.

     John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him verily, verily I say unto
     thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God"..
     no mention of 144,000.

     John 12:26 "If any man serve me, let him follow me, and where I am,
     there also shall my servant be: If any man serve me, him will my
     Father honor"  No mention of 144,000    
    
     

 Jim

>    	In addition to what we've already said about the characteristics
>    of the 144,000, Revelation also says of them that:
 

     also to be added to this list of characteristics is Revelation 14:4
     "These are they which are not defiled with women"
        
   
    		* they "had been redeemed from the earth" (14:3 RSV)
    		* they "follow the Lamb whereever he goes" (14:4 RSV)
    		* they "have been redeemed from mankind as 
    		  first fruits for God and the Lamb" (14:4 RSV)
    		* "in their mouth no lie was found, for they
    		  are spotless" (14:5 RSV)
    		* they have been "sealed the servants of
    		  our God [with the seal] upon their foreheads" (7:3 RSV)
    		* "on Mount Zion [they] stood with the Lamb" ...
    		  and had "his name and his Father's name written
    		  on their foreheads" (Rev 14:1)
    
   >    as such by God through Christ were NOT just men.  Witnesses believe
   > that this reference to those in the church as "first fruits" and the
   > 144,000 as being "first fruits" correspond, and refer to the same group
   > of people (both men and women).
    

     So, what do the Jehovah's witnesses teach about the Revelation 14:4
     statement that "they [144,000] were not defiled with women'?  



      Jim  						

    re .104 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
    I'm glad to see you're reading along (or perhaps wading through?).
    
>>    		"a great multitude which no man could number, 
>>    		from every nation, from all tribes and peoples
>>    		and tongues" ... [would] "come out of the
>>    		great tribulation" [as servants of God and 
>>    		followers of the Lamb] (Rev 7:9,14,15-17 RSV)
>    
>         You neglected to include the statement in Rev 7:9 that states
>         that this great multitude was standing before (in front of) the
>         throne of God and before the Lamb, ...
    
    
    	I didn't leave it out due to "neglect".  I was just trying to be
    brief, since my goal was primarily to discuss the Witness view of the
    144,000.  Our view of the "great multitude" is related, but I didn't
    think it was necessary to go into it at the time.  You DO agree that
    the "great multitude" and the 144,000 are separate groups of people,
    right?
    
>                                     ...    which to me says the great 
>         multitude was in Heaven assuming that is where God's throne is.
>         Verse 15 also states they are before the throne of God and they
>         serve Him night and day in His temple. 
    
    	I appreciate you explaining your views here (I wish more people
    would do this); but you have to admit that the Bible doesn't say
    explicitly that this is in heaven, right?
    
    	Why don't I believe this is heaven?  One reason is that the Bible
    says:
    
    			"Thus says the LORD:  Heaven
    			is my throne and the earth is
    			my footstool."  (Isa 66:1 RSV)
    
    Given that heaven itself is God's throne, one can easily be "before
    the throne" by being on earth, on God's "footstool".
    
    	Really, the expression that God has a "throne" is figurative, for
    Jehovah and Jesus, while in heaven as spirit beings, surely don't
    literally sit on literal thrones.  Instead, this is an allegorical way
    of conveying the notion that God (and the Lamb) wield supreme authority
    over the earth.
    
    	Another reason I believe they are on earth is that the elder
    explicitly told John:
    
    			"These are they who have come out
    			of the tribulation."  (v.14 RSV)
    
    Where does the tribulation take place?  On earth (right?).
    
    	Yet another reason is that the 144,000 are said to "have been
    redeemed from earth" (14:3 RSV), which we take to mean they have been
    resurrected to heaven.  This is NOT said of the "great multitude."
    Furthermore, of the "great multitude", Rev 7:17 continues:
    
    			"... and God will wipe away every
    			tear from their eyes."  (RSV)
    
    which is a promise that is reiterated at the end of Revelation:
    
    			"Then I saw a new heaven and a new
    			earth ... and I heard a loud voice from
    			the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling
    			of God is with men.  He will dwell with
    			them, and they shall be his people,
    			and God himself will be with them; he
    			will wipe away every tear from their
    			eyes, and death shall be no more ..."
    			(Rev 21:1, 3,4 RSV)
    
    This promise is toward "men", or humanity, who will reside on the "new
    earth", which will be governed by the "new heaven".
    
>         Rev 19:1 also refers to the multitude being in Heaven.
    
    This verse reads:
    
    			After this [the destruction of Babylon
    			the great] I heard what seemed to be
    			the loud voice of a great multitude in
    			heaven, crying, "Hallelujah!  Salvation
    			and glory and power belong to our God ..."
    
    A similar loud proclamation followed:
    
    			The I heard what seemed to be the voice
    			of a great multitude, like the sound of
    			many waters and like the sound of
    			mighty thunderpeals, crying, "Hallelujah!
    			For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
    			..." (v.6 RSV)
    
    On the whole, all of the proclamations in heaven about the downfall of
    various elements of wicked humanity all come from angels.  John himself
    doesn't equate this "great multitude" with the one of Rev 7, since he
    really isn't talking about the multitude itself, but rather the sound
    of proclamation that "seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in
    heaven," which was also like "the sound of many waters" and "like the
    sound of mighty thunderpeals".  This is actually very similar to an
    earlier loud cry that John heard:
    
    			"Then I looked, and I heard around the
    			throne and the living creatures and the
    			elders the voice of many angels, numbering
    			myriads of myriads and thousands of
    			thousands, saying with a loud voice,"
    			Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to
    			receive power and wealth and wisdom and
    			might and honor and glory and blessing."
    			(Rev 5:11,12 RSV)
    
    Here John says that the "loud voice" was "of many angels".  I never
    noticed this before, but the proclamations of all of these loud voices
    are all very similar, all having to do with the vindication of God and
    the Lamb.  Since the earlier "loud voice" actually was the voice of
    many angels, it's reasonable to me to conclude that the latter voice
    (that was "like a great multitude") was also the voice of the angelic
    hosts, who have been witnessing these events from heaven.
    
>         Please show me where in the scripture the great multitude is
>         exempt from Heaven, and relegated to life on earth.
    
    	Interesting choice of words, here.  Please show me where the
    scripture says the great multitude are destined for heaven as their
    right.  Also show me from scripture where it says that life on earth is
    something like a punishment that one is "relegated" to.  If some of the
    angels (before the Flood) once "did not keep their own position but
    left their proper dwelling place" (Jude 6 RSV) in order to come to
    earth, that suggests to me that earthly, human life has certain
    pleasures and positive characteristics that spirit life does not.
    Jesus didn't say:
    
    		"Blessed are the meek, for they shall be
    		relegated to the earth"
    
    he said:
    
    		"Blessed are the meek, for they shall 
    		INHERIT the earth"  (Matt 5:5 RSV)
    		
    Did not Jehovah put man on earth in the beginning?
    
    								-mark.

    re .105 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>>    In Revelation 7, Dan is missing, Levi is included, and both Joseph and 
>>    Manasseh are listed (omitting Ephraim).  Revelation doesn't explain the
> 
>     I'll confess to my incomplete knowledge of the Old Testament, but weren't
>     the tribes of Dan and Ephraim pretty much wiped out due to their idolatry?
    
    	I don't believe the Bible says that these family lines were
    conquered to extinction (as punishment for idolatry).  But if you're
    thinking of the judgment God brought against the northern kingdom of
    Israel by Assyria -- in which Assyria carted the whole northern 10
    tribes off into captivity and replaced them with other people who later
    became the Samaritans of Jesus' day -- you could make the same case for
    ALL the other tribes except for Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, who made up
    the southern kingdom of Judah.
    
>   > 	The "window" opened up at Pentacost right after Jesus' death (Acts
>   > 2:1-4ff).  It closes when the last one is chosen by God.  Witnesses
>        
>      What about Old Testament saints?  Are they excluded from the 144,000
>      and therefore not in Heaven?
    
    	Which OT "saints" are you referring to?  "Saint" really just means
    "holy one".  Where does the Bible say that all "holy ones"
    automatically go to heaven?
    
    	Before the Christian arrangement ever taught the hope of a heavenly 
    resurrection, the Jews believed in a resurrection back to earth, for as
    Martha simply said to Jesus:
    
    		"I know that he [her brother] will rise again in the
    		resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24 RSV)
    
    To this day at least some branches of the Jewish faith interpret
    sayings in Daniel and Ezekiel to mean that people will come to life
    again on earth.  [In fact that's why some very conservative branches
    get very upset when Jewish graves are disturbed, for they believe that
    disturbing graves will interfere with the fulfillment of Ezekiel's
    vision of the bones of the dead being reclothed with flesh.]
    
    	To answer your question directly -- Witnesses believe that those
    who have died before Christ, before the "New Covenant" that created the
    special arrangement for 'spiritual Israel' to be formed in heaven --
    will be resurrected to earth (and thus not be part of the 144,000).
    
    ==*==
    
    	I'll have to get to the rest of your posts later.
    
    
    								-mark.
    

    re .106 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>   >    as such by God through Christ were NOT just men.  Witnesses believe
>   > that this reference to those in the church as "first fruits" and the
>   > 144,000 as being "first fruits" correspond, and refer to the same group
>   > of people (both men and women).
>    
>     So, what do the Jehovah's witnesses teach about the Revelation 14:4
>     statement that "they [144,000] were not defiled with women'?  
    
    	Note:	the complete point is "It is these who have not
    		defiled themselves with women, for they are
    		chaste (ftn. Greek virgins)" (RSV)
    
    		As I'll show below, a good many 'religious analysts'
    		consider the primary point to be the meaning of
    		their chasteness -- the fact that they haven't
    		'defiled themselves with women' is just part of the
    		metaphore.
    
    	To answer your question directly, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that
    it's a metaphorical expression which signifies that the 144,000 are
    spiritually undefiled.  
    
    	Some take this passage to literally mean that they remain unmarried
    (some translations read "celibate"), and thus virgin or chaste in this
    literal sense.  It's true that Paul once stated his personal opinion
    that being unmarried [and hence, virgin] leaves more room in one's life
    to serve the Lord (1Cor 7:8,32,34), but Paul also wrote that in time
    there would arise those:
    
    		"giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines
    		of demons ... who forbid marriage ..." (1Tim 4:1,3a RSV)
    
    If Rev 14:4 should be understood literally, that the 144,000 are all
    actual unmarried, virgin men, this would suggest that they have all
    been implicitly forbidden to marry.  Yet, being forbidden to marry is
    actually a "doctrine of demons" ... so ... this is one reason to
    consider the passage to be figurative.
    
    	Another thing to consider is that literal marriage does NOT defile
    a man "with women," for marriage is sanctified by God, as are sexual
    relations within the marriage.  Therefore, the point is evidently
    centered around the more general notion that they haven't committed
    "fornication".  
    
    	Since literal fornication is just one moral crime of many that
    would disqualify a person from privileges in God's service (and God's
    Kingdom in particular; cf. 1Cor 6:9,10), it's rather superfluous to
    just point out one virtue of many which are really obligatory for all
    Christians.  On the other hand, it's well understood that "fornication"
    is often used as a metaphore for idolatrous worship, for God feels the
    same way about idolatry as he does about fornication, since they both
    are a form of an intimate breach of trust and propriety in the
    relationship between two people (which, in the spiritual sense, is
    between God and man).
    
    [continued in the next reply]
    

    [continued from previous reply]

    	I did a little research last night, and found that there is no
    single, universal view on the meaning of this verse among 'orthodox'
    scholarly sources.  Some view it as literally as you do, Jim, that the
    "virginity" and freedom from "defilement with women" testifies to their
    literal, fleshly celibacy [and virginity].  On the other hand, there
    are a good many who view it as Witnesses do, that it's figurative or
    metaphoric (though the interpretations of the metaphore also vary
    somewhat).
    
    	Since you seem to view the virginity of the 144,000 as literal,
    I'll leave it up to you to provide more supportive evidence.  What
    follows below is what I found on the view that the virginity is
    figurative.

    	One NT Greek-language analytical work said this in its article on
    the Greek word for virgin (_parthenos_):

		The Figurative Use.  This is the more likely 
    		use in Rev. 14:4 (cf. the use of _porne_ for 
    		the world).  The redeemed have remained pure 
    		when tempted to fall into idolatry or licentiousness.  
    		The community is parthenos in 2Cor. 11:2 as the 
    		bride of Christ.  The word here signifies 
    		exclusive commitment.  Paul has affianced the 
    		church to Christ and watches over it so that
		he may present it for marriage at the parousia.

  		-- Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
        	Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, editors;
        	Abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1985; p.787

    I believe I mentioned this before, but Witnesses make the same
    connection between Rev 14:4 and 2Cor 11:2.  [As you'll see below,
    others make this connection as well.]

    	Yet another theological dictionary says:

		By parthenos Rev. 14:4 probably means those who, 
    		in contrast with the promiscuous and idolaters 
    		("not defile oneself with women" has the metaphorical 
    		sense), are able to devote themselves entirely to
		the Lamb.  In 2 Cor. 11:2 Paul hopes that, as a 
    		_paranymphios_ (cf. Gen. 24), he may be able to present 
    		to the coming Lord a bride who meanwhile has not 
    		cast about for another Jesus.

		-- The New International Dictionary of New Testament 
		Theology, 1978 (Zondervan); Vol 3, p. 1072

    Again, "not defile oneself with women" is a metaphore, which
    corresponds to their identification as "virgins".

    	The 19th century scholar/commentator E.W. Bullinger said in _The
    Companion Bible_ (his commentary on the KJV):

		virgins. The reference is to the pollution 
    		connected with the great religious system under 
    		the antichrist in the coming days.

    		-- ftn on Rev 14:4; 1974 reprint (Zondervan)

    Bullinger's interpretation of a connection with "the great religious
    system under the antichrist" aside, his point is also that the
    virginity is figurative, and represents a cleanness from religious, or
    spiritual, contamination.

    	I found it interesting to read _The Living Bible_'s rendition of
    this verse:

		"For they are spiritually undefiled, pure as 
    		virgins, following the Lamb wherever he goes."  
    		(1971 -- this is a paraphrase translation; the
    		ftn. gives the literal meaning)

    and found similar footnotes in several other translations:

		"... They are pure(*) and follow the Lamb wherever 
    		he goes."  (*)Ftn. Pure: literally virgins, because 
    		they never indulged in any idolatrous practices, 
    		which are considered to be adultery and fornication 
    		(Rv 2,14f, 20ff; 17,1-7; cf Ez 16,1-58; ch 23)

    		-- New American Bible, St Joseph Edition


		"These are the ones who have kept their virginity* 
    		and have not defiled themselves with women; ..."
    		(*)Ftn. Metaphorically.  In the O.T. marital infidelity 
    		is a metaphor for idolatry, cf. Ho 1:2+, in this case 
    		the worship of the beast.

    		-- The Jerusalem Bible


		"They are those not contaminated in relations with 
    		women, for they are celibates(*)."  (*)ftn.  Marriage 
    		never implies defilement in the Bible; but discipleship
		requires complete dedication to Christ, spiritual 
    		celibacy.

    		-- The Berkley Version in Modern English (1962 Zondervan)


    		" ... not defiled(*)" ftn. A symbolic way of saying 
    		that the redeemed have been faithful to Jesus; they 
    		have not contaminated themselves by worshipping the beast.

		-- The Wesley Bible/NKJV (1990)

    As you can see, although there is some variation in literal
    interpretation (some relate it to "worship of the beast"; others are
    more general, that it simply relates to overall spiritual fidelity), 
    the commentators in these Bibles consider the expression metaphoric and
    symbolic (again, as do Witnesses) of spiritual purity, or celibacy.

    	One other Bible translation with marginal notes, the NASB NT, 1963,
    made the following cross-references to the first clause of Rev 14:4
    ("These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are
    celibates."):

		Matt 19:12; comp. Rev.3:4; 2Cor 11:2; Eph 5:27 

    Matt 19:12 talks about men who have made themselves "eunuchs for the
    sake of the kingdom of heaven" (NASB), which may harmonize with Paul's
    later words in favor of people literally staying single (and virgin)
    for the sake of the Lord's service; but 2Cor 11:2 is the reference to
    the church as a virgin Bride of Christ; and Eph 5:27 and Rev 3:4  are
    references to the need for the "church" (Eph 5:21 RSV) to be "without
    spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without
    blemish" and "not soiled ... and worthy"(RSV), respectively.
    
    ==*==
    
    	Rev 14:4 does seem unique in that it signifies virginity from a
    masculine standpoint, whereas elsewhere in the scriptures, the
    spiritual virginity of God's people is portrayed in a feminine sense
    (with Israel or the Christian church being a "bride"); but the overall
    evidence is that literal virginity isn't as important to God as
    spiritual virginity (for God readily forgives literal fornicators and
    adulterers who repent; but judges spiritual fornicators more harshly,
    since spiritual fornication is so much more insideous and of more
    sweeping consequence).
    
    							-mark.

    I've been doing a little bit of reading to gain some perspective on
    JW's and Mark's position.  I've brought some of it online to share, and
    hopefully Mark can clarify their accuracy.
    
    Mike

Prophets, Promises, Problems
----------------------------
Did Jesus really return to the earth in October, 1874?  And did His kingly
office date from April, 1878?  Was Armageddon, the final worldwide war, to
happen in October, 1914?  Or did Jesus come back in 1914 and Armageddon take
place in 1915?  Or, was Armageddon to happen in 1916? 1918? 1925? 1975?

In each of these years the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as
Jehovah's Witnesses, prepared their followers for a new world order that never
materialized.  But despite these blows to their credibility, the Jehovah's
Witnesses have grown to well over 3� million adherents in 212 countries
worldwide.  From their Brooklyn headquarters, known as "Bethel," the governing
body was wielded absolute authority over its compliant servants and popularized
its doctrine by mass distribution of magazines like "The Watchtower" and
"Awake!"  To date they are the world's largest private publisher, having printed
over one billion pieces of literature since 1920.

The aggressive proselytizing of the Witnesses is often viewed with envy by many
committed Christians.  But a closer look at the Jehovah's Witnesses' background
and doctrine reveals fatal flaws in their polished exterior.

A History of Disappointments
----------------------------
Charles Taze Russell was born in Allegheny, PA, on February 16, 1852.  Troubled
by various church doctrines, such as teachings on hell, he became a skeptic at
age 17.  In 1870 he was exposed to the teachings of William Miller, one of the
originators of the Second Adventist movement.  Miller had originally taught that
Christ would return in October, 1843.  When this event failed, his followers
continued to set new dates, each a complete failure as a prophecy of "things to
come."  But the Millerites provided Charles with (1) a religious denial of hell,
and (2) stimulating studies in end-of-the-age prophecies.

Russell gradually popularized his end-time studies and founded the International
Bible Students Association.  On December 18, 1884, Zion's Watch Tower Tract
Society became a publishing subsidiary of the Association, extending Charles'
influence through works like "Millennial Dawn" and "Studies in the Scriptures."
By 1886 Russell had published "The Divine Plan of the Ages," projecting that
1914 would witness Armageddon and the dawn of Christ's thousand year rule on
earth.  He also taught that the "end times" started in 1799 and that Christ had
returned in 1874.  These dates were later changed when Armageddon failed to
appear in 1914.

After a legal separation from his wife in 1906 and the failure of his 1914 and
1915 prophecies, Russell died on October 31, 1916.  Joseph ("Judge") Rutherford
emerged as the new head.  Reworking Russell's chronologies, he falsely predicted
Armageddon would be in 1918, then 1925.  Still expecting the resurrection of Old
Testament saints to take charge of God's new world order, the Society erected a
house in San Diego, CA, in 1929.  The house, called Beth Sarim ("House of
Princes"), would shelter these coming "princes of the earth," among whom would
be King David, Samson, and Joseph.  Again, this prophecy also failed.  Under
Rutherford the publishing organization merged with the church proper and gave
birth to the present religious corporation.  In 1931 the title "Jehovah's
Witnesses" was adopted.

A Lot of Publicity, A Lack of Integrity
---------------------------------------
In 1942 Nathan H. Knorr stepped into Rutherford's position.  Knorr's most
memorable accomplishment was overseeing the completion of "The New World
Translation" of the Bible in 1961.  Of the four members of the translation
committee (Frederick Franz, Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas),
Frederick Franz was the only one with any exposure to the biblical languages,
having studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but being
self-taught in Hebrew.  Franz, chairman of the committee, eventually took the
helm of the organization in 1977.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' growth increased dramatically when in 1966 Franz, in
his "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," determined that "the
seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of
1975 CE (Christian Era)" (p. 29).  This intimation became a full-blown
expectation of Armageddon and the visible establishment of Christ's reign on
earth.  In 1974 many Witnesses even sold their homes and property in
anticipation of the event.  But like all the other dates set by the Watchtower,
1975 came and went uneventfully.

Despite the subsequent disillusionment of many and an internal "purging of
apostates" in the Brooklyn headquarters, the Jehovah's Witnesses still continue
to grow in numbers.  Indicative of this growth is the massive circulation of
"The Watchtower" magazine, a major Witness periodical, which by September of
1990 had ballooned to 13,950,000 copies per issue.

Awake! - a Watchtower periodical used to introduce Jehovah's Witnesses to the
         public and arouse interest in the organization's local meetings.

Goats - refers to all those outside the Jehovah's Witnesses, those who will be
        judged by God as in Matthew 25:31-46.

Great Crowd - also "sheep," refers to the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses who
              will not live in heaven but rather will inhabit restored
              Paradise Earth after Christ's return.

Jehovah - said to be the only correct name for Almighty God.

Jehovah's Witnesses - a term coined from Isaiah 43:10 in 1931 as the official
                      title of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society.

Kingdom Hall - a local meeting place of Jehovah's Witnesses used for instruction
               of its members.

Little Flock - also the "144,000" and the "anointed class," this refers to the
               elite group of Jehovah's Witnesses who will live in heaven
               after this life and reign with Christ.

Michael - the archangel who was supposedly Jehovah's first creation and who
          later became the man Jesus.

New World Translation - the official Watchtower Bible characterized by
                        mistranslations and deliberately designed to support
                        Watchtower theology.

The Watchtower - a Jehovah's Witness' publication for instruction of its
                 members.

Doctrine of God
---------------
JW - The doctrine of the Trinity is "a false, unbiblical doctrine" originated by
     Satan (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 386; Let God Be True, p. 101).
Bible - There is one God (Deut. 6:4), but three distinct Persons in the Godhead,
        the Father (Philippians 2:11), Jesus Christ the Son (John 5:18), and
        the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4,9).

JW - Christ the Son was originally the first created being of Jehovah God (Let
     God Be True, p. 32).
Bible - Christ the Son is eternal, uncreated God (John 8:58, Revelation 1:17-18,
        and Isaiah 44:6).

JW - Jesus Christ was actually the incarnation of Michael the Archangel; Christ
     resumed the name Michael when He ascended to heaven (Your Will Be Done On
     Earth, p. 316-7; New Heavens and a New Earth, p. 30).
Bible - Nowhere is Michael said to have become Christ or vice versa; the Bible
        sharply distinguishes between angels and the exalted office of Christ
        (Hebrews 1:1-4).  Scripture tells us that Jesus is God (John 1:1), that
        He created all things and is before all things (Colossians 1:15-17),
        and that He was never al angel (Hebrews 1:5).

JW - Jesus Christ arose from the grave as a spirit person, Jehovah allowing Him
     to materialize a different body in which to appear to His disciples (Your
     Will Be Done On Earth, p. 143; Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 314).
Bible - Jesus Christ arose in the same body that was laid in the tomb, which
        explains the marks of crucifixion, the empty tomb, and the empty burial
        wrappings (Luke 24:39, John 2:19-22, 20:20,25,27, John 20:1-9,
        respectively).

JW - The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but rather the impersonal, active force of
     God (Let God Be True, 2nd ed., p. 108; The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p.24).
Bible - The Holy Spirit is an eternal Person, possessing all the essence of God
        (John 14:16-17,26; Acts 5:3-4).

Doctrine of Man
---------------
JW - A person's soul is an inseparable part of the body, so that when a person
     dies there is no continued existence of the soul (Make Sure of All
     Things, 1953 ed., pp. 349,352).
Bible - Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
        promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
        Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
        (II Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).

JW - The doctrine of immortality of the soul finds its origin with Satan (Let
     God Be True, 2nd ed., pp. 74-75).
Bible - The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
        II Corinthians 5:1,6-8).

JW - Since there is no continued existence of the soul after death, Jehovah's
     Witnesses who die will eventually be recreated from Jehovah's memory to
     inhabit His kingdom (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 311).
Bible - The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (I Kings
        17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
        (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).

Doctrine of Salvation
---------------------
JW - Christ's death only purchased for mankind the earthly life and earthly
     blessings lost when Adam sinned (Studies in Scriptures, v5, p. 145).
Bible - Christ's death purchased present forgiveness of sins and blessings
        beyond this earthly existence (Ephesians 1:3-14).

JW - Christ's death only provides an opportunity for a person to attain eternal
     life through obeying God's laws.  There is no assurance of eternal life
     (Studies in Scriptures, v1, pp. 150,152).
Bible - Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
        His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
        eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
        (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
        (John 3:16).

JW - Christ's blood shed on Calvary applies only to 144,000 elite JW's (the
     "Israel of God") and not for the "great crowd," the remainder of JW's
     (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 389).
Bible - Christ died on behalf of all men (I Timothy 2:5-6, I John 2:2,
        II Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9) and said He is preparing a place for
        those who trust Him, and that place will be with Him (John 14:1-3).

JW - One can live in God's paradise only through (1) studying the Bible, (2)
     associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, (3) changing living habits from the
     former way to God's way (requiring JW baptism), and (4) being a preacher
     and a witness of God's kingdom (From Paradise Lost to Paradise
     Regained, pp. 242-249).
Bible - Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior (Acts
        4:10-12, 10:42-43, Romans 3:21-24).

JW - The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally
     after death is false (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., pp. 154-55).
Bible - Hell is a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant wicked
        (Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).

JW - Claim to be the only true Christian Witnesses of Jehovah God.
Bible - We are all to be witnesses of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8).

JW - The Bible can't be understood without their teachings and literature and
     that your only hope is to worship Jehovah God through the Watchtower
     Society.
Bible - Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will teach us (John 14:26), and Paul
        wrote, "...we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand"
        (II Corinthians 1:13).  Additionally, Jesus said, "I am the way, the
        truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me"
        (John 14:6).

    re .111 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    I've been doing a little bit of reading to gain some perspective on
>    JW's and Mark's position.  I've brought some of it online to share, and
>    hopefully Mark can clarify their accuracy.
    
    	There's nothing like history written by the opposition.
    
    
    								-mark.

    .116
    
    Wow, Talk about the horse calling the kettle whoopie! :-)
    
    Wasn't there recently a note set forth by yourself with exactly the
    same agenda against fundamentalism not too long ago..????
    
    Incredible ... 

    > Are you really desiring to understand?
    
    To quote a popular phrase, "yes I am."  Admittedly, it's from a BAC
    publication and I thought about paraphrasing it, but didn't think I
    should.
    
    Mike

Note 732.113

>New World Translation - the official Watchtower Bible characterized by
>                        mistranslations and deliberately designed to support
>                        Watchtower theology.

Mike,

	If you're truly interested in a dialogue, I suggest that statements
such as that which appears above are counterproductive.

	It clear that the propaganda you've gotten a hold of is biased
and intended to weaken and crush some of the basic tenets held by Jehovah's
Witnesses.

Richard

 re .118



 Amazing indeed..

    re .112 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>Prophets, Promises, Problems
>----------------------------
>Did Jesus really return to the earth in October, 1874?  And did His kingly
>office date from April, 1878?  Was Armageddon, the final worldwide war, to
>happen in October, 1914?  Or did Jesus come back in 1914 and Armageddon take
>place in 1915?  Or, was Armageddon to happen in 1916? 1918? 1925? 1975?
    
    	As we all know, the Bible DOES predict Jesus' return in kingly
    power.  Just before he ascended to heaven, his disciples asked:
    
    		"Lord, is this the time at which you are
    		to restore sovereignty to Israel?"  (Act 1:6 REB)
    
    Jesus' answer was that that time was under the Father's "own control"
    (v.7 REB), but we are assured that it will come.
    
    	Jesus also said to "keep on the watch" for his return in kingly
    power.  The group that became Jehovah's Witnesses began with this goal
    in mind.
    
>In each of these years the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as
>Jehovah's Witnesses, prepared their followers for a new world order that never
>materialized.  
    
    	You might say the same thing about the Bible itself.  *It* is
    preparing Christians for a "new world order" that has "never
    materialized".  The point isn't when HASN'T it come, but when WILL it
    come, and will people be ready for it?
    
>               But despite these blows to their credibility, the Jehovah's
>Witnesses have grown to well over 3� million adherents in 212 countries
>worldwide.  From their Brooklyn headquarters, known as "Bethel," the governing
>body was wielded absolute authority over its compliant servants and popularized
>its doctrine by mass distribution of magazines like "The Watchtower" and
>"Awake!" To date they are the world's largest private publisher, having printed
>over one billion pieces of literature since 1920.
    
    	"Absolute authority" ... phooey.
    
    	Our religious organization isn't a democracy or an anarchy, but it
    certainly DOESN'T "wield absolute authority" over each individual. 
    That's Jehovah's position.
    
    	It just so happens that JWs are probably more successful at getting
    each member to live according to Jehovah's Sovereignty than other
    religions -- thus the failure of other religions to succeed is thought
    to be the norm, the result being that JWs are accused of "tyrannical
    leadership" because outsiders can't figure out how everyone manages to
    cooperate to such a great extent.
    
    	The facts and figures are a bit dated, but are on track.
    
>The aggressive proselytizing of the Witnesses is often viewed with envy by many
>committed Christians.  But a closer look at the Jehovah's Witnesses' background
>and doctrine reveals fatal flaws in their polished exterior.
    
    	A closer look reveals that we're all just imperfect humans, too. 
    The "polish" that we appear to have is only relative to the very
    unpolished nature of other religious groups.
    
    	I think the writer is right when he talks about "many committed
    Christians" looking on with "envy".  His remarks bear the smacks of
    such "envy" as well.
    
>A History of Disappointments
>----------------------------
    
    	How's that old adage go?  You learn more from being wrong than from
    being right?
    
>Charles Taze Russell was born in Allegheny, PA, on February 16, 1852.  Troubled
>by various church doctrines, such as teachings on hell, he became a skeptic at
>age 17.  In 1870 he was exposed to the teachings of William Miller, one of the
>originators of the Second Adventist movement. Miller had originally taught that
>Christ would return in October, 1843.  When this event failed, his followers
>continued to set new dates, each a complete failure as a prophecy of "things to
>come." But the Millerites provided Charles with (1) a religious denial of hell,
>and (2) stimulating studies in end-of-the-age prophecies.
    
    	Basically true.
    
>Russell gradually popularized his end-time studies and founded theInternational
>Bible Students Association.  On December 18, 1884, Zion's Watch Tower Tract
>Society became a publishing subsidiary of the Association, extending Charles'
>influence through works like "Millennial Dawn" and "Studies in the Scriptures."
>By 1886 Russell had published "The Divine Plan of the Ages," projecting that
>1914 would witness Armageddon and the dawn of Christ's thousand year rule on
>earth.  He also taught that the "end times" started in 1799 and that Christ had
>returned in 1874.  
    
    	True.
    
>                   These dates were later changed when Armageddon failed to
>appear in 1914.
    
    	Abandoned is more correct -- it being an obvious thing to do.
    
>After a legal separation from his wife in 1906 and the failure of his 1914 and
>1915 prophecies, Russell died on October 31, 1916.  Joseph ("Judge") Rutherford
>emerged as the new head. Reworking Russell's chronologies, he falsely predicted
>Armageddon would be in 1918, then 1925. Still expecting the resurrection of Old
>Testament saints to take charge of God's new world order, the Society erected a
>house in San Diego, CA, in 1929.  The house, called Beth Sarim ("House of
>Princes"), would shelter these coming "princes of the earth," among whom would
>be King David, Samson, and Joseph.  Again, this prophecy also failed.  Under
>Rutherford the publishing organization merged with the church proper and gave
>birth to the present religious corporation.  In 1931 the title "Jehovah's
>Witnesses" was adopted.
    
    	You really should read the recent history of JWs put out by the
    Watchtower Society.  It helps one see the 'whole forest' rather than just
    a 'few trees.'
    
    	From our point of view, many of these things are mere footnotes in
    our history.
    
    						[to be continued ...]

    
    Re.115
    
    Mark,
    
    Yes, he's done the same with Hinduism in the past, too, in other
    conferences.
    
    Mike - the Hinduism topic is 398 in the conference, should you 
    wish to continue here.
    
    Cindy

    re .112 [continued] (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>A Lot of Publicity, A Lack of Integrity
>---------------------------------------
>In 1942 Nathan H. Knorr stepped into Rutherford's position.  Knorr's most
>memorable accomplishment was overseeing the completion of "The New World
>Translation" of the Bible in 1961.  Of the four members of the translation
>committee (Frederick Franz, Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas),
>Frederick Franz was the only one with any exposure to the biblical languages,
>having studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but being
>self-taught in Hebrew.  Franz, chairman of the committee, eventually took the
>helm of the organization in 1977.
    
    	What a lot of baloney.
    
    	Knorr's most memorable accomplishment from our point of view was
    instituting a missionary school and world-wide missionary service
    (during WWII), and instituting a training program to teach each Witness
    how to speak at the door.  Knorr also reorganized the Governing Body to
    transfer so much authority AWAY from an individual (the president of
    the legal corporations) and spread it (more Biblically) across the
    entire Governing Body.
    
    	Speaking integrity in 1942 (and the 1940's as a whole), JWs were
    the only Christian religion (viewed as a sect) to completely refuse to
    cooperate with the Nazi state (and other Fascist states as well).  All
    the other major religions of the day caved in.  Christendom was
    responsible for WWI and WWII.  Tell me about a lack of integrity.
    
    	Regardless of the sniping against the people involved, the NWT
    really DOES hold its own.  The author of this "history" is just being a
    jerk.
    
>The Jehovah's Witnesses' growth increased dramatically when in 1966 Franz, in
>his "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," determined that "the
>seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of
>1975 CE (Christian Era)" (p. 29).  This intimation became a full-blown
>expectation of Armageddon and the visible establishment of Christ's reign on
>earth.  
    
    	I was rather young at the time, but I heard more about 1975 from
    the outside than I did on the inside.  There was some speculation; but
    it didn't change the outlook of most Witnesses.  The speculation became
    "fullblown" to some, but it was mostly OVERblown by outside critics and
    the press.
    
>earth.  In 1974 many Witnesses even sold their homes and property in
>anticipation of the event.  
    
    	"Many Witnesses" is a rather vague term, wouldn't you say?  How
    many?  In absolute numbers or percentages?
    
    	This makes it sounds as though they sold out and went to live in
    caves until the end.  What really happened is that a few went to
    'serve were the need was great,' figuring that since they knew when the
    end was, they could afford to 'give their all' to Jehovah for a little
    while.  When 1975 passed, some decided that serving Jehovah with such
    intensity indefinitely wasn't what they had in mind.
    
    	1975 exposed some hypocrisy, and weeded out those who were serving
    Jehovah only on their own terms.
    
    	This also doesn't take into account that almost from the start, a
    steady percentage of people who have become JWs have simplified their
    lives and given their all in 'full time service,' in what we call
    "Pioneer" work or missionary service.
    
>                            But like all the other dates set by the Watchtower,
>1975 came and went uneventfully.
    
    	This really overstates what was said, for 1975 was NEVER said to be
    the date for the end.
    
    	People inferred it, and early in the 1980's the Watchtower
    published a statement apologizing for having fostered these speculative
    expectations -- but again, 1975 was NEVER said to be "the end".
    
    ==*==
    
    	As a thumbnail history of JWs, this really does a poor job (except
    that we might say it's a good hatchet job) at relating what JW history
    has REALLY been like.
    
    
    								-mark.

    Mark, thanks for clarifying your view of the information.  Some things
    that you commented on were extremely interesting:
    
�>come." But the Millerites provided Charles with (1) a religious denial of hell,
�>and (2) stimulating studies in end-of-the-age prophecies.
�    
�    	Basically true.
    
    do JW's today still deny the existence of Hell?
    
�>By 1886 Russell had published "The Divine Plan of the Ages," projecting that
�>1914 would witness Armageddon and the dawn of Christ's thousand year rule on
�>earth.  He also taught that the "end times" started in 1799 and that Christ had
�>returned in 1874.  
�    
�    	True.
    
    Did Russell state these as Divinely inspired prophecies?  A "thus saith
    the Lord..." type of thing?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re .123 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    do JW's today still deny the existence of Hell?
    
    	That's like asking me if we deny the existance of Zeus (or any
    other place or person that does not really exist).
    
    	The English word "hell" is used the translation the Heb. word
    _sheol_, and the Greek words _hades_, _gehenna_, and _tartarus_.
    The LXX uses _hades_ the translation _sheol_.
    
    	Essentially, _sheol_ or _hades_ in the Bible represents the common
    grave of mankind.  Interestingly, the English word "hell" traces its
    roots back to a Latin word which simply meant "to cover over". 
    Everyone, both good and bad, went to _sheol_ when they died. 
    Figuratively, the dead "sleep" in _sheol_, in the "dust of the ground"
    until the resurrection, when God (through Jesus) recreates them.
    
    	_Gehenna_ is Greek for the Valley of Hinnom.  This valley outside
    of Jerusalem used to be use for false worship (including child
    sacrifice) until king Josiah put a stop to it and made the valley unfit
    for human occupation (he polluted it in some way).  By Jesus' day this
    valley was a garbage dump which was kept burning with sulphur.  Trash
    and the bodies of dead criminals were thrown into it.  It was a well
    understood symbol of the "second death", eternal destruction (since the
    dead who were unburied were understood to have no hope of
    resurrection).
    
    	_Tartarus_ is used once or twice for the condition the unfaithful
    angels have been thrown into by God.  [Greek mythology also uses the
    term to represent the place were the gods locked up the titans.]  It's
    NOT a place of human habitation of any sort.
    
    	JW's believe in the original meaning of these terms.  The hell of
    eternal torment taught by Christendom isn't taught in the Bible.  It
    was borrowed from pagan thought [which did teach the existance of such
    a place].
    
>    Did Russell state these as Divinely inspired prophecies?  A "thus saith
>    the Lord..." type of thing?
    
    	No.
    
    	Russell thought he was living in or near 'the time of the end,' and
    that it was time to understand the meaning of the time-related
    prophecies [particularly in Daniel], doing so by looking at events in
    past history, as well as present events, matching events to the
    symbolic details of the prophecies.  [Miller did this first.]
    
    	The prophecies themselves are obviously inspired; but Russell's
    attempts to figure out their meaning were not.  Russell explicitly
    denied being inspired, as does the Watchtower today.
    
    
    								-mark.

    Thanks for explaining why you believe that.  All I would add to that is
    a brief explanation to why I don't agree.  fwiw, Sheol also appears in the 
    Bible.  There are a few things that the Bible seems to disagree with you on:
    
    - Hell is described as a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant 
      wicked (Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).
    
    - The occupants of Sheol were loosed/freed upon Christ's resurrection
      (Matthew 27:52).  
    
    - In Luke 16, Jesus talks about the poor man and rich man.  One is
      Sheol, the other being tormented in a literal Hell.  This is *not* a
      parable because it doesn't fit the characteristics of a parable.  For
      instance, the men here have names, those in parables do not.
    
    Sheol was the holding place for God's people until Christ paid the 
    atonement for sin.  That's why they were freed after Christ's
    resurrection.  David talked about this promise in Psalm 16:10.  Across
    the abyss from Sheol was Hell where the rich man was suffering.
    
    Mike

    re 732.125 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    - Hell is described as a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant 
>      wicked (Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).
    
    	Revelation 20:11-15 speaks of "Death" and "Hades" being opened up,
    with the dead in them coming out.  After the dead are judged, in the
    vision,
    
    		"Death and Hades were flung into the lake 
    		of fire.  This lake of fire is the second death; 
    		into it were flung any whose names were not 
    		to be found in the book of life."  (v.14,15 REB)
    
    Since "Hades" (which generally corresponds to Sheol) and "Death" were
    thrown into the lake of fire, the lake of fire is obviously not a real
    place (for how do you throw one place into another, or how to you throw
    "death" someplace?).  The Bible itself explains that the lake of fire
    is simply a symbol for "the second death," which is the state of
    destruction that is opposite to life (for those not found in the "book
    of life") are thrown there.
    
    	If a person were to continue to exist in torment in such a place,
    that would mean they were alive in some form.  Since those thrown in
    there are NOT in the book of life, they are obviously dead.
    
    	Regarding Matt 13, I need to look something up at home, first. 
    Stay tuned.
    
    	Regarding Mark 9:47-48, this is one of those places where the
    English word "hell" is used to translate the Greek word "gehenna".  
    This passage does NOT say that those thrown into it are tormented
    forever.  It just says that it's a place where:
    
    		"the devouring worm never dies and the fire
    		is never quenched."  (v.48 REB)
    
    This was an allusion to the literal Gehenna outside of Jerusalem, which
    was the burning garbage dump.  No one living was thrown there.  It was
    not a place of torment.
    
    	However, if you want to take this literally, then this means that
    all those people will be thrown into the Valley of Hinnom outside of
    Jerusalem.  It will be interesting see that sight (or site) afterwards.
    
>    - The occupants of Sheol were loosed/freed upon Christ's resurrection
>      (Matthew 27:52).
    
    	This is an odd passage, since it isn't made reference to by any
    other Bible writer [as proof that resurrection is possible]; and yes,
    many do interpret it as a resurrection account.
    
    	Since this was obviously written in Greek, the word _sheol_ is not
    used here.  The word _hades_ is ALSO not used here.  Instead, this says
    that the "graves" (REB; or "memorial tombs" NWT) opened up.
    
    	Regardless of what really happened, this isn't proof that the dead
    are tormented in hell forever.
    
>    - In Luke 16, Jesus talks about the poor man and rich man.  One is
>      Sheol, the other being tormented in a literal Hell.  This is *not* a
>      parable because it doesn't fit the characteristics of a parable.  For
>      instance, the men here have names, those in parables do not.
    
    	The account says that Lazarus was taken to "Abraham's bosom".  The
    rich man was in _hades_.  Since hades is the same place as sheol in
    Jewish thought, you can't have your cake and eat it too over this
    passage.
    
    	Just because it's a bit different from any other parable doesn't
    mean that this isn't a parable as well.  Quite frankly it has all the
    marks of a parable.  If taken literally, it just tells us that
    thoughtless rich people go to _hades_ where they hope for just a drop
    of water, and poor beggers go to "Abraham's bosom" (as though being a
    poor begger is such a virtue).
    
    	Given the audience, the "Pharisees, who loved money," who sought to
    "impress people with [their self-] righteousness" (v.14,15 REB), it was
    a scathing parable that revealed that as a class of people they would
    soon suffer a death-like blow, losing their treasured spiritual
    position, while the poor people who were following Jesus would be
    elevated to favor.
    
    	People say this must be real story because Jesus named the begger.
    However, I think the reason he did this was to add to the irony of the
    situation.  "Lazarus" is a form of the name Eleazar, which means "God
    has helped."  Jewish tradition of the day said that people could accrue
    righteousness in God's eyes by helping the poor.  Jesus criticized the
    Pharisees for the outward appearance of righteousness, which was
    fostered, in part, by mock showings of sincerity by helping a few poor
    people.  But in reality, the Jewish leadership despised the poor,
    ordinary people, for not knowing the Law, and treated them as "rabble"
    who were "cursed" (John 7:49 REB).  They were NOT truly helping the
    people, whom Jesus could see were "sheep without a shephred, harassed
    and helpless" (Mat 9:36 REB).  Therefore, it was God (through Jesus)
    who ended up helping them, the "poor in spirit" (Mat 5:3 REB), who
    corresponded to the poor man Lazarus in the parable.
    
    	Jesus said of the "poor in spirit" that "the kingdom of Heaven is
    theirs" (Mat 5:3 REB), which corresponds to Lazarus being taken to
    "Abraham's bosom".  In the parable, Abraham said to the rich man,
    "remember that the good things fell to your during your lifetime" (v.25
    REB).  Jesus said of "the hypocrits in [the] synagogues" that "they
    have their reward already" (Mat 6:2 REB).  Although they made a show of
    giving alms, they were NOT really showing true mercy -- spiritual mercy
    --- to the "poor in spirit".  Instead they made up "heavy loads and
    pile[d] them on the shoulders of others, but [would] not themselves lift
    a finger to ease the burden" (Mat 23:4 REB).
    
    	As a parable, is has a LOT more meaning than as a literal story. 
    [Extra credit if you can guess what the significance of the dogs
    licking Lazarus's sores meant.]
    
>    Sheol was the holding place for God's people until Christ paid the 
>    atonement for sin.  That's why they were freed after Christ's
>    resurrection.  David talked about this promise in Psalm 16:10.  Across
>    the abyss from Sheol was Hell where the rich man was suffering.
    
    	But Mike, all of the faithful dead weren't raised after Christ
    died.  This alleged resurrection happened the moment Christ died; thus
    Jesus himself had not even been resurrected.  Since Jesus said that HE
    was the "resurrection and life," it's obvious that this event wasn't
    the promised resurrection that the Christian writers knew was still to
    come.
    
    	Psalm 16:10 was applied to Jesus by Peter in Acts 2, this applying
    to Jesus' own resurrection (on the third day).  It did not apply to the
    dead in the graves which were opened by the earthquake that took place
    at Jesus' death. Furthermore, as Peter said in Acts 2, "David died and
    was buried; we have his tomb here to this very day" (v.29 REB).  Thus
    David himself was obviously still dead.  He was not resurrected at
    Jesus' death.
    
    								-mark.

    Parables are generic.  They don't provide specific details like the
    subject's names.
    
         Parables - a story that may not be actually factual, remains true to
                  life and teaches a moral lesson or truth.  Jesus used this
                  method to reveal truths to believers and hide truth from
                  those who rejected Him or the truth, or hardened their
                  hearts against Him or that truth.  Determine why the parable
                  was told, look for the intended meaning, don't impose your
                  meaning beyond what is stated, identify the central or
                  focal idea, interpret in the context of the culture of that
                  era, and do not use them for establishing doctrine when they
                  are the primary or only source for that teaching.

    re 732.128 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    Parables are generic.  They don't provide specific details like the
>    subject's names.
    
    	This one does.
    
    	Prophetic parables in the OT provided names.  Jehovah called
    unfaithful Judah and Sameria by the names of two fictitous prostitutes,
    Ohiliab and Oholibah.  
    
    	In Revelation, symbolic city-names are given to the two opposing
    spiritual classes of people, New Jerusalem and Babylon the Great. 
    Though named after real cities, they weren't the actual earthly cities.
    
>    
>         Parables - a story that may not be actually factual, remains true to
>                  life and teaches a moral lesson or truth.  Jesus used this
>                  method to reveal truths to believers and hide truth from
>                  those who rejected Him or the truth, or hardened their
>                  hearts against Him or that truth.  Determine why the parable
>                  was told, look for the intended meaning, don't impose your
>                  meaning beyond what is stated, identify the central or
>                  focal idea, interpret in the context of the culture of that
>                  era, and do not use them for establishing doctrine when they
>                  are the primary or only source for that teaching.
    
    	This definition proves nothing about whether Luke 16 was factual or
    fictitious.  You have to look at the details of the parable to decide.
    
    	If Luke 16 is taken literally, it contradicts the literal
    statements in the Bible that the dead know nothing, and "sleep" in the
    ground until the resurrection.  If taken symbolically, it well
    illustrates the spiritual differences between the rulers and the
    ordinary Jewish people, and prophecied a drastic change [that would
    take place after Jesus' death].
    
    								-mark.

>    	If Luke 16 is taken literally, it contradicts the literal
>    statements in the Bible that the dead know nothing, and "sleep" in the
>    ground until the resurrection.  If taken symbolically, it well
    
    Scripture (God's Word) shouldn't contradict Scripture.  If it does, the
    problem isn't God's.

    .130  I'm not a Jehovah's Witness.  But you're right, the problem
    isn't God's.
    
    Richard
    

    re .113 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>                      -< some terms as I understand them >-
    
    ... but not necessarily the exact same way we look at them.
    
    
>Awake! - a Watchtower periodical used to introduce Jehovah's Witnesses to the
>         public and arouse interest in the organization's local meetings.
    
    	Arousing interest in our local meetings is not it's prime purpose,
    but it may do that, I suppose.

>Goats - refers to all those outside the Jehovah's Witnesses, those who will be
>        judged by God as in Matthew 25:31-46.
    
    	If we thought everyone currently outside our organization were
    "goats," we wouldn't bother with our public ministry work.
    
    	Jesus and the angels make the final decision as to who the sheep
    and who the goats are.
    
    	I don't usually see more 'mainline' Christians paying much
    attention to this scripture in the first place; but if they did, I
    suppose they'd come to similar conclusions (that everyone who wasn't
    "saved" like they were would be a "goat").

>Great Crowd - also "sheep," refers to the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses who
>              will not live in heaven but rather will inhabit restored
>              Paradise Earth after Christ's return.
    
    	This comes from Rev 7.  The heavenly elder explained to John that a
    "great crowd" (NWT) or "great multitude" (KJV) would survive the
    tribulation, and live on earth in what we call the "new system".
    
    	Again, I don't usually see 'mainline' Christians paying much
    attention to the identity of the "great crowd" -- but it sure seems
    like me that that's the right "crowd" to be in with.
    
    	It also seems right to me that this crowd would have a pretty
    clear-cut identity.  If you don't know who the "great crowd" is, they'd
    be awfully hard to find and join, wouldn't you say?

>Jehovah - said to be the only correct name for Almighty God.
    
    	God's name in Hebrew, called the Tetragrammaton, is made up of four
    characters which are most commonly transliterated as either YHWH or
    JHVH, from which the forms Yahweh, Jahveh, and Jehovah, are taken.
    Though most modern sholars prefer Yahweh, Jehovah is the most well
    known literary form of God's name in the English language.
    
    	How the name was pronounced in Hebrew is unknown for sure. 
    Nonetheless, "Jehovah" is as well known a form of the Hebrew as "Jesus"
    is of the Greek form of that name.

>Jehovah's Witnesses - a term coined from Isaiah 43:10 in 1931 as the official
>                      title of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society.
    
    	The legal corporations do not have "Jehovah's Witnesses" in their
    names (as far as I know).
    
    	Before 1931, they called themselves the International Bible
    Students Association (ISBA), or Bible Students.  Since this was not a
    very distinct way to identify themselves, and they were perjoratively
    called "Russelites" by outsiders, they took the name "Jehovah's
    Witnesses" to more accurately represent their identity and purpose.
    
    	You are correct that it was based on Isa 43:10 (ASV).

>Little Flock - also the "144,000" and the "anointed class," this refers to the
>               elite group of Jehovah's Witnesses who will live in heaven
>               after this life and reign with Christ.
    
    	I doubt very much that anointed Witnesses consider themselves
    particularly "elite" -- but they do correspond to the term rendered in
    the KJV as "the elect" (i.e., they are "elected" by God for a heavenly
    destiny).
    
    	Those who are called to reign with Christ certainly do have a lofty
    privilege, however.  [Unless I'm wrong, most "born again Christians"
    think that they all will reign with Christ in heaven ... so I guess
    that makes them pretty "elite", too.]

>Michael - the archangel who was supposedly Jehovah's first creation and who
>          later became the man Jesus.
    
    	That's a pretty skeptical way to put it; but we've already been
    over this before.
    
    	As a question for you, Mike, what was the name of God's Son before
    he came to earth?

>New World Translation - the official Watchtower Bible characterized by
>                        mistranslations and deliberately designed to support
>                        Watchtower theology.
    
    	This sort of rhetoric works both ways.  Catholic and Protestant
    Bibles are characterized by mistranslations and are deliberately
    designed to support Catholic and Protestant theology.
    
    	See how easy it is to write stuff like this (pot shots with no
    substance)?
    
    
    								-mark.

    What I find interesting is how you only take the Bible literally when
    it suits your doctrine.  This is my perception based on remarks in here 
    and the "Jesus is God" topic.
    
>    	God's name in Hebrew, called the Tetragrammaton, is made up of four
>    characters which are most commonly transliterated as either YHWH or
>    JHVH, from which the forms Yahweh, Jahveh, and Jehovah, are taken.
>    Though most modern sholars prefer Yahweh, Jehovah is the most well
>    known literary form of God's name in the English language.
    
    I'm well aware of the Tetragrammaton and I've never seen it spelled
    JHVH.  It's always referred to as YHWH among Bible scholars.  All the
    traditional mysteries or unknowns about YHWH contradicts substituting
    it with Jehovah.
    
>    	How the name was pronounced in Hebrew is unknown for sure. 
>    Nonetheless, "Jehovah" is as well known a form of the Hebrew as "Jesus"
>    is of the Greek form of that name.
    
    Like I said, given that commonly known information, such a substitution
    isn't necessarily proper.
    
>    	As a question for you, Mike, what was the name of God's Son before
>    he came to earth?
    
    YHWH ;-)
    
    Mike

    re 732.133 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    What I find interesting is how you only take the Bible literally when
>    it suits your doctrine.  This is my perception based on remarks in here 
>    and the "Jesus is God" topic.
    
    	Sorry Mike, but these kind of cracks just don't wash with me.  I
    could easily same thing about your views.  You ignore or consider
    figurative some things that are obviously literal (like the scriptures
    which say the dead return to the dust, and that they know nothing), and
    take literally other things when it suits your views (like Luke 16).
    
>    I'm well aware of the Tetragrammaton and I've never seen it spelled
>    JHVH.  It's always referred to as YHWH among Bible scholars.  
    
    
    	YHWH is popular in modern works, but it abounds in 19th and earth
    20th century works.
    
>                                                                  All the
>    traditional mysteries or unknowns about YHWH contradicts substituting
>    it with Jehovah.
    
    	Take your blinders off, Mike.  Jehovah has been a well accepted
    form of God's name in English for hundreds of years.  It's in the King
    James Bible, the American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the
    Living Bible, and many, many scholarly works.  It appears in building
    inscriptions, churches, and was even in an American Revolutionary War
    slogan.
    
    	Modern scholars have simply copped an attitude about the form
    "Jehovah", and have passed it along to people who are simply looking
    for an excuse to put it down.
    
    	Part of Christendom's problem is that it's gotten bogged down in
    man-made traditions and mysteries, to the point of making Christianity
    invalid because of these teachings.  If they can help it, modern
    scholars avoid using God's name entirely; the result being that many
    people don't even realize that God has a name.  Hiding it behind an
    alleged 'mystery' of its Hebrew letters just compounds the problem,
    since originally God intended for his name to be spoken aloud, and
    called upon by his people.
    
>>    	How the name was pronounced in Hebrew is unknown for sure. 
>>    Nonetheless, "Jehovah" is as well known a form of the Hebrew as "Jesus"
>>    is of the Greek form of that name.
>    
>    Like I said, given that commonly known information, such a substitution
>    isn't necessarily proper.
    
    	Says who?  You?  Modern scholars?
    
    	Jehovah said that his own name would be his memorial to time
    indefinite.  Who are you to say that using it in one of its accepted
    English forms is improper?
    
    	I don't have the quote handy, but a Jewish scholar once noted that
    in ancient times, when the Jews worshipped God acceptibly, they used
    God's name often.  Only when the nation slipped into false worship did
    the use of God's name stop, as though bearing witness to their
    unworthiness to use his name aloud.
    
    	Make all the excuses you want to hide his name, Mike.  If you're
    not going to make it known, he'll surely find someone who will.
    
    
    								-mark.

In German, which does not have the letter "Y", and in which the letter
"J" is pronounced like English "Y", the Tetragrammaton is "JHWH".

The term "Jehovah" originated in Germany, where German "W" is pronounced
like English "V".

In Hebrew bibles, there were vowel markings on occurences of the Tetra-
grammaton to represent "Adonai" (Lord) or "Elohim" (God), since this was the
way it was read in synagogues; YHWH being considered too holy to pronounce.

The vowel markings of "Adonai" were erroneously interposed into the
Tetragrammaton to create the name "Jahowah" (pronounced Ya-ho-va) which
was Anglicized as Jehovah.

/john

>    could easily same thing about your views.  You ignore or consider
>    figurative some things that are obviously literal (like the scriptures
>    which say the dead return to the dust, and that they know nothing), and
>    take literally other things when it suits your views (like Luke 16).
    
    I do take the Bible literally, but I try to take all verses on any
    particular subject into consideration.  The dead do return to the dust,
    in regards to the flesh.  The dust is what God used to create our
    flesh.  In creating man, God breathed our souls into us (Genesis 2:7, I
    think).  Scientifically speaking, the same minerals/elements found in
    our bodies are all found in the ground.  Man having a soul is
    well-documented in the Bible.
    
    Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
    promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
    Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
    (II Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).
    
    The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
    II Corinthians 5:1,6-8).
    
    The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (I Kings
    17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
    (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).
    
    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
    (John 3:16).
    
    Christ died on behalf of all men (I Timothy 2:5-6, I John 2:2,
    II Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9) and said He is preparing a place for
    those who trust Him, and that place will be with Him (John 14:1-3).
    
    Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior (Acts
    4:10-12, 10:42-43, Romans 3:21-24).
    
    If you reject Jesus Christ as Savior, you will experience God's Wrath
    in the form of eternal punishment.  Hell is a place of everlasting
    torment for the unrepentant wicked (Revelation 20:11-15, 
    Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).
    
    >    	Says who?  You?  Modern scholars?
    
    Actually there's a pretty good explanation of divine names in "Evidence
    that Demands a Verdict - Vol. 2" (by Josh McDowell) in chapter 11.  From 
    all the sources he quotes, it appears that Jehovah is one of the least
    accurate names (compared to the others) for God.  YHWH, or "I AM" is the 
    most specific.  Elohim is more generic, but is applied to the Godhead 
    (uniplural form).  Jehovah becomes more distinct when combind with
    -Jireh (Lord will provide), -Nissi (Lord my Banner), -Shalom (Lord send
    Peace), -Shammah (Lord is there), -Tsidkenu (Lord Our Righteous), etc.
    Even then, you can see it describes more of God's character than
    actually naming Him as YHWH does.
    
    Mike (who's a Calminian)

    re .136 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike

>    I do take the Bible literally, but I try to take all verses on any
>    particular subject into consideration.  The dead do return to the dust,
>    in regards to the flesh.  

    	The Bible doesn't make this qualification.

>                              The dust is what God used to create our
>    flesh.  In creating man, God breathed our souls into us (Genesis 2:7, I
>    think).  

    	That's not what Gen 2:7 says.  It says God breathed into man's
    nostrils the "breath of life" and that man literally "became a living
    soul" ["living being" (REB)].  Made didn't receive a soul at this time,
    man BECAME a living soul.  Soul literally means "breather" -- for
    appropriately, the most obvious evidence that a body is alive is that
    it breaths.

>    think).  Scientifically speaking, the same minerals/elements found in
>    our bodies are all found in the ground.  Man having a soul is
>    well-documented in the Bible.

    	Right about the elements ... wrong about man HAVING a soul. 
    According to the Hebrew, man IS a soul.

>    Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
>    promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
>    Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
>    (II Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).

    	Re Luke 16, we've already been around on this.  That's a symbolic
    parable.

    	You should do more research on Luke 23:43 -- orthodox translators
    render this to fit the doctrine of the immortal soul into it.  But
    originally, the Greek had no punctuation, thus what Jesus said was:

    		truly I tell you today you will be with me ...

    Some Bible translators and language scholars (like George Lamsa) point
    out that rightly, the comma belongs after the word "today", for this
    was an idiom of emphasis.  Therefore, Jesus didn't say that the
    evildoer would BE in paradise with him that day, but rather, on that
    day he assured him of being in paradise.  

    	As the rest of the Bible accounts about Jesus' death show, Jesus
    DIDN'T go to "paradise" upon his death, he went to "hades".

    	Paul did NOT teach that life continues on independantly after
    death.  He taught that the dead need to be resurrected before they live
    again (1Cor 15).  Immortality is a gift that Christians with the
    heavenly calling  receive when resurrected.  What Paul says in 2Cor 5
    fits in with what he established earlier in 1Cor 15, that the
    "immortal" life that they yearn for will be received in the
    resurrection, at the "last trumpet".

    	Immortality is NOT something Christians possess intrinsically, for
    it's something they must "put on" when they're given their "new body"
    in the resurrection (2Cor 5:4 REB).

    	Phil 1:19-24 must also be taken in context with Paul's other
    remarks about the resurrection "when God's trumpet sounds" (1Th 5:16
    REB).  Paul wrote that at that time, 

    		"the Lord himself will descend from heaven;
    		first the Christian dead will rise ... thus we
    		shall always be with the Lord" (v.16a,17b REB)

    In Phil, when Paul wrote that his hope, upon "depart[ing]" life in the
    body of flesh, was to "be with Christ" (v.23 REB), must be set in
    context with what he wrote to the Thessalonians, that this would really
    happen at the Lord's 'second coming'.  Until then, the dead merely
    "sleep" (1Th 4:13 REB).

>    The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
>    II Corinthians 5:1,6-8).

    	Eccl 12:7 speaking poeticly about death, says:

    		"... before the dust returns to the earth as it
    		began and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (REB)

    In Hebrew, "spirit" is the same word as "breath".  Earlier in Eccl
    Solomon wrote:

    		"Human beings and beasts share one and the same
    		fate: death comes to both alike.  They all draw
    		the same breath.  Man has no advantage over the
    		beast, for everything is futility.  All go to
    		the SAME place: all came from the dust, and to
    		the dust all return.  Who konws whether the spirit
    		[Heb. == breath] of a human being goes upward or
    		whether the spirit of a beast goes downward to
    		the earth?"  (3:19-21 REB)

    According to the same writer, animals and man both go to the SAME place
    when they die, to the dust.  The one distinction between them is that
    the spirit, or breath, of the beasts surely goes back to the ground,
    whereas man's spirit, or breath, "goes upward," back to God who alone
    may restore it.  However, the spirit doesn't continue on as conscious
    life, for the same writer also said:

    		"The living know that they will die; but the dead
    		know NOTHING."  (Eccl 9:5 REB)
    
    
    							[continued ...]

    re .136 [continued] (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike

>    The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (I Kings
>    17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
>    (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).

    	In the Revised English Bible which was planned and directed by 
    representatives from all of the major orthodox churches in England, 1
    Kings 17:21 says Elijah prayed:

    		"'... let the breath of life return to the 
    		body of this child.'  The LORD listened to
    		Elijah's cry, and the breath of life returned
    		to the child's body, and he revived."  (v.21,22)

    This was NOT a reinfusion of the child's "immortal soul".  It was
    merely the return of the animating spirit, or "breath of life," that
    makes humans alive.

    	Luke 7:11-17 also makes NO mention of an immortal soul.  Jesus
    merely said to the dead man, "... get up," and "the dead man sat up and
    began to speak" (REB).

    	Luke 24:36-43 is about one of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
    His appearance made them think they were seeing "a ghost" (v.37 REB) --
    and Jesus assured them, by proving he was solid, that he was no
    "ghost".  In order for Jesus to have been alive, he had to be
    resurrected.  This is not proof that the dead live on as immortal
    souls.

    	1Cor 15:39-54 is all about the resurrection; but note how Paul
    explains the timing of it.

    		"As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be
    		brought to life [NOTE: not just reunited with
    		their bodies]; but each in proper order:  Christ
    		the firstfruits, and afterwards, AT HIS
    		COMING, those who belong to Christ."  (15:22,23 REB)

    The dead don't keep living as immortal spirit merely awaiting to be
    rejoined with their bodies;  they only come to life upon being
    resurrected, which doesn't begin until "his coming" (or _parousia_, his
    presence).  Again, as he told the Thessalonians, they "sleep" until
    that time.

>    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
>    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
>    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
>    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
>    (John 3:16).

    	I pretty much agree with this.

>    Christ died on behalf of all men (I Timothy 2:5-6, I John 2:2,
>    II Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9) and said He is preparing a place for
>    those who trust Him, and that place will be with Him (John 14:1-3).

    	Again, I agree.

>    Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior (Acts
>    4:10-12, 10:42-43, Romans 3:21-24).

    	More agreement.

>    If you reject Jesus Christ as Savior, you will experience God's Wrath
>    in the form of eternal punishment.  Hell is a place of everlasting
>    torment for the unrepentant wicked (Revelation 20:11-15, 
>    Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).

    	I partially agree.  Those who reject Christ will receive
    everlasting punishment.  I do not reject Christ.

    	The "lake of fire" spoken of at Rev 20 is NOT hell, for "hell", or
    "hades" (and death) are both thrown into it.  The lake of fire,
    identified as "the second death", sybolizes everlasting destruction.

    	Mark 9:47-48 is _gehenna_, the allusion to the literal Valley of
    Hinnom which was a burning garbage dump in Jesus' day.  It represented
    eternal death without hope of resurrection, for the dead thrown into it
    were not buried, and thus not considered worthy of resurrection.

    	Mat 13 speaks of the "fiery furnace" that the "weeds" would be
    thrown into at the time of the "harvest" during the "time of the end"
    (Mat 13:39 REB; or "close of the age" RSV).  The "time of the end" or
    "close of the age" isn't a single point in time, but rather, a period
    of time during which the harvest of "wheat" and "weeds"  (or "sheep"
    and "goats") is carried out.  It leads up to the final end, but again,
    is a period of time that only culminates in the final destruction of
    the wicked; their destruction only awaits them once they are classified
    as "weeds".

    	Although Matt 13:42,43 speaks of them weeds being "thrown into the
    blazing furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth",
    this doesn't mean that it will literally last forever, any more than
    the wicked are literally weeds, and their destiny is a literal furnace.
    In a related, but prior parable, Jesus said that the master directed
    his workers to:

    		"gather the darnel (weeds) forist, and tie it
    		into bundles for burning; then collect the
    		wheat into my barn."  (Mat 13:30 REB)

    This helps us see that Jesus was talking about a separating work
    that would take place during the "time of the end" which would result
    -- from his point of view -- in people being gathered, or "bundled", as
    either wheat for saving or weeds/darnel "for burning"  What he goes on
    to describe involve the reactions of the people involved at the moment,
    when they realize that they being treated as weeds for burning.

    	Literal weeds, once thrown into a furnace, don't remain forever. 
    They burn up quickly.  Thus, Jesus fortold the agony that the wicked
    will suffer as destruction falls upon them.  However, since
    "destruction" (1Th 5:3; 2Th 1:9) is what they will suffer, it's obvious
    that they don't remain in torment forever, any more than literal weeds
    remain forever in a firey furnace.


    								-mark.

>    	As the rest of the Bible accounts about Jesus' death show, Jesus
>    DIDN'T go to "paradise" upon his death, he went to "hades".
    >
>    	The "lake of fire" spoken of at Rev 20 is NOT hell, for "hell", or
>    "hades" (and death) are both thrown into it.  The lake of fire,
>    identified as "the second death", sybolizes everlasting destruction.
    
    Why would Jesus go there if it's just a symbol of something and not a
    real place?
    
>    merely the return of the animating spirit, or "breath of life," that
>    makes humans alive.
    
    so you do admit that the "breath of life" is a spirit.  How does a
    man's/woman's spirit not equal his/her soul?

    No offense intended, but you still seem to have to go through quite a
    bit of manipulation to fit literal texts into your theology.  Again no
    offense, it's just my opinion on what I see in your
    presentations/rebuttals.
    
    Mike

    re .139 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>>    	As the rest of the Bible accounts about Jesus' death show, Jesus
>>    DIDN'T go to "paradise" upon his death, he went to "hades".
>    >
>>    	The "lake of fire" spoken of at Rev 20 is NOT hell, for "hell", or
>>    "hades" (and death) are both thrown into it.  The lake of fire,
>>    identified as "the second death", sybolizes everlasting destruction.
>    
>    Why would Jesus go there if it's just a symbol of something and not a
>    real place?
    
    	One of us isn't following what the other is saying.
    
    	Jesus did NOT go to the "lake of fire".  That's merely a fitting
    symbol of eternal destruction.  Please address the scriptures (in
    Paul's writings) which state that the wicked suffer destruction.
    
    	Jesus DID go to _hades_, which is the Greek language equivalent of
    the Hebrew language _sheol_, which is the common grave of all mankind,
    whether wicked or good.
    
    	Jesus was literally laid in a rock tomb; but Jewish thought in
    general was that the dead who were worthy of resurrection awaited that
    time in sheol/hades.  Although spoken of figuratively as a place, it
    simply meant the grave.
    
>>    merely the return of the animating spirit, or "breath of life," that
>>    makes humans alive.
>    
>    so you do admit that the "breath of life" is a spirit.  How does a
>    man's/woman's spirit not equal his/her soul?
    
    	The word for spirit is translated as either breath or spirit (or
    wind), depending on the context.  The connection with breath and wind,
    both of which are invisible 'forces', establishes the impersonal nation
    of the "spirit" in a person.  Breath and the "life spark" are clearly
    not IDENTICAL in reality, for one can hold one's breath and still be
    alive -- but that they are linked is obvious.  If a person stops
    breathing for long, he's either dead (with no life spark) or about to
    die.
    
    	The question isn't how soul and spirit do NOT equate; but rather,
    the burden of proof is on you to show that they are identical (and both
    immortal).
    
    	There is no doubt that they are connected, for if one does not
    breath, or possess the "spark of life" or energizing spirit of life,
    one doesn't stand a chance of being a living soul [or of remaining one
    for long].
    
    	In the original Hebrew, living humans were "living soul".  Fish and
    animals were ALSO "living souls".  A "soul" WAS a living/breathing
    creature.  What the Bible calls "the breath of life" that God breathed
    into man is what made his inanimate flesh [which was once merely
    unorganized elements of the ground] alive.
    
    	When a person dies, he expires -- the word expire having at its
    root the notion that the spirit, or final breath goes out.  One's
    breath is not conscious (though superstitious people may have thought
    differently, and hence the practice of saying "bless you" when a person
    sneezes, as though their soul is at risk of leaving by the sneeze).  If
    you breath your last breath in death, only God can make you live again,
    so that you might take another breath.
    
    	In summary, for a "soul" to live, it requires "spirit" (as in the
    'spark of life' that animates human tissue cells) and it requires
    literal breath.  The words have an obvious connection as they apply to
    life in general, but they are NOT identical.
    
>    No offense intended, but you still seem to have to go through quite a
>    bit of manipulation to fit literal texts into your theology.  Again no
>    offense, it's just my opinion on what I see in your
>    presentations/rebuttals.
    
    	All I'm going through is a bit of explanation.  It all seems pretty
    simple and straightforward to me.  What I'm telling you is the truth.
    If it seems like "manipulation" to you, perhaps it's because it doesn't
    fit in with YOUR theology.  
    
    
    								-mark.

    I'm in need of some more clarification. ;-)
    
�>    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
�>    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
�>    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
�>    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
�>    (John 3:16).
�
�    	I pretty much agree with this.
    
    I was under the impression that JW's believe that Christ's death only
    provides an *opportunity* for a person to attain eternal life through 
    obeying God's laws and there is no assurance of eternal life.

�>    Christ died on behalf of all men (I Timothy 2:5-6, I John 2:2,
�>    II Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9) and said He is preparing a place for
�>    those who trust Him, and that place will be with Him (John 14:1-3).
�
�    	Again, I agree.
    
    Here, I thought JW's believe that Christ's blood shed on Calvary applies 
    only to 144,000 elite JW's (the "Israel of God") and not for the "great 
    crowd," the remainder of JW's.  Which is it?

�>    Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior (Acts
�>    4:10-12, 10:42-43, Romans 3:21-24).
�
�    	More agreement.
    
    Again, I thought it was one can live in God's paradise only through 
    (1) studying the Bible, (2) associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, 
    (3) changing living habits from the former way to God's way (requiring JW 
    baptism), and (4) being a preacher and a witness of God's kingdom.

�>    If you reject Jesus Christ as Savior, you will experience God's Wrath
�>    in the form of eternal punishment.  Hell is a place of everlasting
�>    torment for the unrepentant wicked (Revelation 20:11-15, 
�>    Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).
�
�    	I partially agree.  Those who reject Christ will receive
�    everlasting punishment.  I do not reject Christ.
    
    Maybe I should ask how a JW *accepts* Christ as their Savior and what
    significance it has in your church?
    
    Would you agree that Christ's death purchased present forgiveness of sins 
    and blessings beyond this earthly existence according to Ephesians
    1:3-14?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re .139 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
    After I posted my reply to this posting, I realized a point that needs
    clarification ...
    
>>    merely the return of the animating spirit, or "breath of life," that
>>    makes humans alive.
>    
>    so you do admit that the "breath of life" is a spirit.  How does a
>    man's/woman's spirit not equal his/her soul?
    
    I gather you ask this because I quoted 1Kings 17 from the REB which
    stated that Elijah prayed for the return of the dead boy's "breath of
    life."  The NWT and RSV say that he prayed for the return of the boy's
    "soul" -- which I believe is the most literal translation.
    
    I didn't mean to say that "soul" and "breath-of-life"/spirit are
    identical; but only show that the [very orthodox] REB translators
    viewed this event as a return of the boy's life-force, or "breath." 
    Again, soul literally means "breather".
    
    The word for soul has several shades of meaning; thus some translations
    render it as "living being" in certain places.  The soul is the whole
    person.  The expressions "living soul" and "dead soul" mean living
    person and dead person.
    
    								-mark.

    re .141 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>�>    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
>�>    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
>�>    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
>�>    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
>�>    (John 3:16).
>�
>�    	I pretty much agree with this.
>    
>    I was under the impression that JW's believe that Christ's death only
>    provides an *opportunity* for a person to attain eternal life through 
>    obeying God's laws and there is no assurance of eternal life.
    
    	God and Christ won't renig on their promise of salvation to those
    who put faith in Christ and obey his commands; but a person, by his
    lifecourse, can show that he (or she) is not living according to
    Christ's commands -- thus the faith of that person is worthless.  That
    faith won't save a person.  (In other words, the Bible doesn't teach
    'once saved always saved'.)  
    
    	Jesus said the person who "endures to the end" will be saved, which
    includes living according to Christian principles and following Bible
    commands for Christians.  A person who doesn't do this up to the end of
    his life or the 'end' of this world cannot expect to be saved, can he?
    James had a lot to say about faith without works being dead.
    
>�>    Christ died on behalf of all men (I Timothy 2:5-6, I John 2:2,
>�>    II Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9) and said He is preparing a place for
>�>    those who trust Him, and that place will be with Him (John 14:1-3).
>�
>�    	Again, I agree.
>    
>    Here, I thought JW's believe that Christ's blood shed on Calvary applies 
>    only to 144,000 elite JW's (the "Israel of God") and not for the "great 
>    crowd," the remainder of JW's.  Which is it?
    
    	This is a common misconception made by people (usually critics) who
    don't understand the Witness view on the 144,000.
    
    	Jesus' shed blood paid the ransom price for all sinful humans who
    put faith in that sacrifice.  From the Witness point of view, this
    includes both the 144,000 and all the rest of humanity who comprise the
    "great crowd" who will survive the Great Tribulation and continue to
    live on earth.
    
    	Christ's shed blood ALSO put into effect the "New Covenant" --
    which Witnesses believe applies the the 144,000, the "Israel of God".
    Just as the Mosaic Law Covenant was made between God and a limitted
    number of people (fleshly Israel, and not the whole human race), the
    "New Covenant" is also a limitted agreement.  The purpose of the New
    Covenant is to benefit all mankind, but it's still a legal agreement
    between limitted parties.  [This fulfills God's promise to Abraham that
    "by means of his seed, all the nations would bless themselves."  The
    "seed of Abraham" is limitted to Christ and the 144,000; but the rest
    of humanity, "all the nations" would benefit from this arrangement.]
    
    	In a nutshell, the purpose of the New Covenant is to seal the
    number of people who will be resurrected to heaven to rule with Christ
    as kings and priests over the earth [cf. Rev 20].  Just as human
    elections put a fixed number of people in office to run the government,
    God has effectively "elected" a fixed number of people to serve with
    Christ in heaven.  It's not up to man to appoint these kings and
    priests -- this selection is up to God [hence Jesus' reply to the
    mother of James and John that it wasn't up to him to give out positions
    at his right hand or his left].  When Jesus returned to heaven, he
    began to "prepare the place" reserved for the 144,000 whom God would
    "elect" or anoint.
    
    	So, in conclusion, Jesus' did die on behalf of all men, whether
    they are elected by God to be part of the New Covenant or not. 
    The New Covenant, which was ratified by Jesus' blood, benefits all
    mankind, but it applies in a specific way only to the 144,000.
    
>�>    Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior (Acts
>�>    4:10-12, 10:42-43, Romans 3:21-24).
>�
>�    	More agreement.
>    
>    Again, I thought it was one can live in God's paradise only through 
>    (1) studying the Bible, (2) associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, 
>    (3) changing living habits from the former way to God's way (requiring JW 
>    baptism), and (4) being a preacher and a witness of God's kingdom.
    
    	What you said initialially, and your four follow-on points, aren't
    contradictory or mutually exclusive; they are complimentary.  But let
    me turn your points around and ask:
    
    	1) If a person DOESN'T study the Bible, can it REALLY be said
    	   that he will be able to know and trust Christ?  After all,
    	   Paul wrote that faith follows from the things heard, or learned,
    	   which have been recorded in the Bible (by him and others for
    	   us).
    
    	2) Jehovah's Witnesses aside, for a moment -- can a person say
    	   he's truly trusting in Jesus Christ if he isn't associating
    	   with the true Christian congregation that Jesus established?
    
    	3) Can a person say he is trusting in Christ if he's not
    	   obeying his commandments [conveyed through the Bible] to
    	   live according to godly principles?  Didn't Jesus
    	   command his followers to baptize new disciples?
    
    	4) Can a person say he's trusting in Christ if he doesn't
    	   follow in his footsteps and carry out his commands to
    	   give a witness about the coming Kingdom?  Today, people
    	   campaign for politicians because they believe in their
    	   abilities and trust them and their ability to govern.
    	   Can a Christian say he really trusts in Christ to solve
    	   man's problems if he's not willing to bear witness and
    	   preach about the Kingdom?
    
    							[to be continued]

    re .141 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>�>    If you reject Jesus Christ as Savior, you will experience God's Wrath
>�>    in the form of eternal punishment.  [... stuff about hell deleted ...]
>�
>�    	I partially agree.  Those who reject Christ will receive
>�    everlasting punishment.  I do not reject Christ.
>    
>    Maybe I should ask how a JW *accepts* Christ as their Savior and what
>    significance it has in your church?
    
    	Pardon me for being cagey, but I can't help but think that you're
    looking for certain 'stock phrases' which will either prove or disprove
    that they way Witnesses "accept Christ" is ... acceptible.
    
    	Aside from coming to know what the Bible says, believing it,
    repenting of sin, dedicating oneself to God (instead of self), getting
    baptized, and in general following the Bible's commands for Christians,
    how else would you define "accepting Christ"?  Is accepting Christ a
    mere token gesture, or does it not involve one's entire course of life
    and outlook?
    
>    Would you agree that Christ's death purchased present forgiveness of sins 
>    and blessings beyond this earthly existence according to Ephesians
>    1:3-14?
    
    	I appreciate your citing scriptural references, but it would help
    even more if you isolated the particular words of the passages so that
    your point isn't left for me to guess at.
    
    	I agree that Christ's death holds out a hope for those who die,
    such that in the future they will be resurrected, either to life on
    earth or (for a few) to life in heaven -- thus proving that the
    forgiveness of their sins REALLY means the elimination of sin and the
    restoration of real life, that is, everlasting life, to man.
    
    	For those of the "great crowd" who survive the Great Tribulation,
    they will never die, and thus will experience, while alive, the
    ultimate benefit of having their sins forgiven by seeing their bodies
    healed of sin and its effects.
    
    	If you're asking whether I believe there is more to life than the
    way we live it now, the answer is yes -- with those future prospects
    being made possible by Christ's sacrifice.  If you're trying to nail me
    down to admiting beliefs about the future that are identical to yours,
    you probably won't succeed.  However, if you want to understand what my
    beliefs are and how and why they differ from yours, just keep asking
    questions.  I'll do my best to give clear and straight answers,
    supported by Scripture.
    
    								-mark.

    Mark,
    
    	It is rather apparent to me that this is not your first encounter
    with such challenges and questioning.  It's obvious you've "done your
    homework."
    
    	I am a trinitarian.  Even so I can appreciate your knowledge,
    eloquence, and restraint in the face of confrontation.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    faith won't save a person.  (In other words, the Bible doesn't teach
>    'once saved always saved'.)  
    
    I'm a Calminian (Calvinsim vs. Arminianism) when it comes to this
    debate.  I believe the Bible teaches balance between these 2 extremes. 
    In some passages, the Bible seems to be teaching that you cannot lose
    your salvation, we should be living like we can.  I think it comes down
    to God's grace.  When you accept His gift of salvation, the mere
    thought of His grace and the assurance of salvation should be enough to
    motivate you to continually worship and serve Him.
    
>    	Jesus said the person who "endures to the end" will be saved, which
>    includes living according to Christian principles and following Bible
>    commands for Christians.  A person who doesn't do this up to the end of
>    his life or the 'end' of this world cannot expect to be saved, can he?
>    James had a lot to say about faith without works being dead.
    
    Agreed.  Works are kind of like a fruit of the Holy Spirit to me. 
    After all Christ has done to save us, it should be a joy to serve Him.
    
>    	So, in conclusion, Jesus' did die on behalf of all men, whether
>    they are elected by God to be part of the New Covenant or not. 
>    The New Covenant, which was ratified by Jesus' blood, benefits all
>    mankind, but it applies in a specific way only to the 144,000.
    
    In a sense this would frustrate and sadden me.  I want to be there as
    Christ promised all believers would be, but I don't see that assurance
    with the JW's point of view.  I rejoice that Christ promised that all
    believers will be with Him in heaven.  It appears under the JW's
    perspective, you have roughly a 144,000/4,500,000,000 probability of
    being with Christ in heaven.
    
>    	1) If a person DOESN'T study the Bible, can it REALLY be said
>    	   that he will be able to know and trust Christ?  After all,
>    	   Paul wrote that faith follows from the things heard, or learned,
>    	   which have been recorded in the Bible (by him and others for
>    	   us).
    
    What about people that accept Christ as their Lord and Savior on their
    death bed?  What about our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in
    countries where Christians are radically persecuted (i.e., Iran,
    China)?  What about those that receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
    Third World Countries that don't have access to the Bible in their
    dialect?  I've heard of large underground churches in China that only
    have 1-2 pages out of the entire Bible and they *TREASURE* every morsel
    on those pages.  The Spirit of God within these believers lead them to
    know Christ.  My wife's grandfather was illiterate, yet to this day,
    I've never met another person who has memorized as much of God's Word as
    he did.  
    
>    	2) Jehovah's Witnesses aside, for a moment -- can a person say
>    	   he's truly trusting in Jesus Christ if he isn't associating
>    	   with the true Christian congregation that Jesus established?
    
    Yes.  Paul told us not to forsake the fellowshipping with the saints,
    but we can still be saved and grow in the Lord without being active in
    any denomination.  God and His Word is all you need.  Getting back to
    my wife's grandfather, he was one of the most God-fearing men I've ever
    met.  The Holy Spirit was very much alive in his life.
    
>    	3) Can a person say he is trusting in Christ if he's not
>    	   obeying his commandments [conveyed through the Bible] to
>    	   live according to godly principles?  Didn't Jesus
>    	   command his followers to baptize new disciples?
    
    Like I said before, God's grace in saving us should be enough to
    motivate us to serve Him and thank Him for all He's done.  Of course,
    spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ is just one of many things we
    should be doing.  If you can't serve Him just because of His abounding
    love and sacrifice for us, I would certainly question your committment.
    But that's my human nature.  Ultimately, it's between you and God.
    
>    	4) Can a person say he's trusting in Christ if he doesn't
>    	   follow in his footsteps and carry out his commands to
>    	   give a witness about the coming Kingdom?  Today, people
>    	   campaign for politicians because they believe in their
>    	   abilities and trust them and their ability to govern.
>    	   Can a Christian say he really trusts in Christ to solve
>    	   man's problems if he's not willing to bear witness and
>    	   preach about the Kingdom?
    
    I would say no to this as well.  Jesus said if we didn't confess Him
    before man, He wouldn't confess us before the Father.  God's will is
    that nobody perish so we must spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation.
    
    Mike

    re .145 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)/Richard
    
>    	It is rather apparent to me that this is not your first encounter
>    with such challenges and questioning.  It's obvious you've "done your
>    homework."
    
    	I'll admit to having seen most of these challenges before, but
    each time around there's enough different about them to make the whole
    processing interesting [for me, that is, so that I'm motivated to give
    fresh answers, rather than simply using old ones 'out of the can'].
    
>    	I am a trinitarian.  Even so I can appreciate your knowledge,
>    eloquence, and restraint in the face of confrontation.
    
    	Well, shucks ... twern't nothin'.  (Practice makes perfect, I
    guess. :-)   It also helps to keep 1Pet 3:15 in mind.
    
    	Thanks for the kind words.
    
    
    							regards,
    							-mark.

>    	Aside from coming to know what the Bible says, believing it,
>    repenting of sin, dedicating oneself to God (instead of self), getting
>    baptized, and in general following the Bible's commands for Christians,
>    how else would you define "accepting Christ"?  Is accepting Christ a
>    mere token gesture, or does it not involve one's entire course of life
>    and outlook?
    
    Well I've already worn out Romans 10:9-10 for today ;-) so let's try
    another verse that presents the Gospel of Christ in a nutshell:
    
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Coupled with passages like the Romans Road, the step to a BAC's
    salvation comes through what is commonly known as the 'sinner's prayer.'
    Just a simple, sincere prayer from your heart where you acknowledge
    your sin and God's gift of salvation through Christ's atonement.  It
    usually goes something like this:
    
    "Jesus, come into my heart.  I know that I am a sinner, but I thank You
    for dying on the cross for my sin.  I ask you to forgive me and cleanse
    my sin.  Be my personal Lord and Savior.  Help me now, from this day
    forward, to follow You."
    
    After this, you're saved according to Romans 10:9-10 (and the rest of
    the Romans road).  From here on out, you study the Bible to grow,
    follow God's Word, get baptized, etc.  Accepting Christ only takes this
    simple prayer from the heart, living for Christ takes a lifetime. 
    God seals you with His Holy Spirit when you're saved and will help
    guide you through the journey.
    
>    	For those of the "great crowd" who survive the Great Tribulation,
>    they will never die, and thus will experience, while alive, the
>    ultimate benefit of having their sins forgiven by seeing their bodies
>    healed of sin and its effects.
    
    Another different view than from the BAC's.  When God's pouring out His
    wrath during the Great Tribulation, I wouldn't want to be here and I
    wouldn't with that on anyone.  I'd be surprised if anyone lives through
    it, especially near the end when it becomes a spiritual battle.  I
    believe the Bible's eschatological passages point to a rapturing of all
    believers in Christ before the Great Tribulation.  This is a whole
    other topic in itself, but I believe this is consistent with God not
    judging the righteous among the wicked (Enoch, Noah, Lot, etc.).
    
    Mike

    re 732.146 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike

>    I'm a Calminian (Calvinsim vs. Arminianism) when it comes to this
>    debate.  I believe the Bible teaches balance between these 2 extremes. 
>    In some passages, the Bible seems to be teaching that you cannot lose
>    your salvation, we should be living like we can.  I think it comes down
>    to God's grace.  When you accept His gift of salvation, the mere
>    thought of His grace and the assurance of salvation should be enough to
>    motivate you to continually worship and serve Him.

    	That's interesting ... but I believe that it oversimplifies what
    the NT (in particular) really says.  Jude wrote:

    		"... I was fully intending to write to 
    		you about the salvation we share, when I
    		found it necessary to take up my pen and
    		urge you to join in the STRUGGLE for
    		that faith which God entrusted to his
    		people once for all." (Jude 3 REB)

    He then went to describe the effect that apostates were having in the
    congregations.  In light of this, it seems evident that it's not
    realistic to simply say that all one has to do is consider the "mere
    thought of His grace and the assurance of salvation" in order to be
    motivated.  Because of the pressures of the world, it's often necessary
    to "struggle" to stay faithful.

    	Jesus was once asked, "are only a few to be saved?" (Luke 13:23
    REB).  Jesus replied, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow
    door; for I tell you that many will try to enter but will not succeed"
    (v.24 REB).  The Greek for "make every effort" literally means
    "struggle".
    
    	This doesn't mean that one "works" for salvation, as though one can
    earn it; but there *does* seem to be a clear message that it's
    necessary to 'work' at one's faith in order to keep it strong and
    healthy.
    
>>    	So, in conclusion, Jesus' did die on behalf of all men, whether
>>    they are elected by God to be part of the New Covenant or not. 
>>    The New Covenant, which was ratified by Jesus' blood, benefits all
>>    mankind, but it applies in a specific way only to the 144,000.
>    
>    In a sense this would frustrate and sadden me.  I want to be there as
>    Christ promised all believers would be, but I don't see that assurance
>    with the JW's point of view.  I rejoice that Christ promised that all
>    believers will be with Him in heaven.  
    
    	It's true that the Bible reveals a heavenly hope (for some); but
    Jesus ALSO said "the meek will inherit the earth".  His promise at Luke
    23:43 to the thief to be with him in "paradise" definitely confirms the
    earthly hope, for "paradise" was on earth, not in heaven.  The Bible
    promises *both* a "new heaven" AND a "new earth," both of which are
    obviously made possible by Christ.  If, as you say,  "all believers"
    will go to heaven, who will live on the "new earth"?  Would they not be
    "believers," too?
    
    	To be blunt, it seems to me that you assume that YOU can choose to
    go to heaven youself, as though your desire to go there obligates God
    to take you there.  Since the heavenly hope is a "calling" from God,
    how can you, by mere desire, compell God to call you to heaven?
    
    	The JWs who are anointed ARE assured of their place in heaven. 
    The majority who are not anointed are assured a place on earth.
    
>                                           It appears under the JW's
>    perspective, you have roughly a 144,000/4,500,000,000 probability of
>    being with Christ in heaven.
    
    	I believe you have the wrong outlook on the matter.  If a person
    isn't called to heaven by God, the probability of being in heaven is
    ZERO.
    
    	Heavenly life for humans is a privilege -- and an assignment,
    really -- but it's NOT a natural right.  It's only a right to those
    whom God anoints with his spirit, giving them the spirit token which
    bears witness to their having been "born again" by the operation of
    God's spirit.  God bestows that right at his discretion; it's not
    something that man can claim merely by asking (or hoping), any more
    than man can simply ask for any other 'gift of the spirit' and expect
    God to automatically bestow it.
    
    	Those who go to heaven do so in order to rule with Christ as kings
    and priests.  Who are you to simply claim that privilege by wanting it?
    God's theocratic order isn't like human politics, which holds out power
    to anyone who seeks to grab it.
    
    	As far as being "sad" about not going to heaven goes; all JWs with
    the earthly hope are far from sad.  The only thing that makes human
    life on earth less than pleasurable is sin and its affects.  Once sin
    is done away with, human life will last forever, and will be enjoyed
    without any thought or need for something "better".
    
    	Human life is a gift with its own pleasures and rewards.  Don't
    forget that human pleasures were even once sought by angels.
    
    							[to be continued]

    re .14 [continued] (by FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>>    	1) If a person DOESN'T study the Bible, can it REALLY be said
>>    	   that he will be able to know and trust Christ?  After all,
>>    	   Paul wrote that faith follows from the things heard, or learned,
>>    	   which have been recorded in the Bible (by him and others for
>>    	   us).
>    
>    What about people that accept Christ as their Lord and Savior on their
>    death bed?  
    
    	What about them?  Jesus promised a resurrection of both the
    "righteous and the unrighteous".  He'll sort out who is worthy of
    resurrection in a just way, so that no man will have cause for
    complaint.  The only people who WON'T be resurrected are those whom God
    can charge with having 'sinned against the holy spirit' -- whom Jesus
    said would not be forgiven.  God knows who they are; thus it's not our
    worry.
    
    	The dead are now in God's hands.  The important thing is to focus
    on what the living should be doing.
    
>                What about our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in
>    countries where Christians are radically persecuted (i.e., Iran,
>    China)?  
    
    	Again, what about them?  Jesus said that the "good news" would be
    preached to the all the earth, and then the end will come.  Jesus also
    said that he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him.  He'll take into
    consideration whatever extenuating circumstances there are as he judges
    the whole earth in righteousness.
    
    	Like it or not, Jesus also said that relatively "few" would find
    and stay on the "road to life."  He'd even reject many who claim to be
    Christian -- even those who could point to powerful works done in his
    name (Mat 7:22).
    
    	The Bible's teachings about the final judgment of this wicked world
    present us all with certain stark, and sobering realities that can't be
    wished away by sentimental, human thinking.  We may not fully
    understand all the details of this final judgment, but we ARE assured
    that it will be righteous and just.  Again, the most important thing is
    for each individual to make sure that he (or she):
    
    		"pray[s] at all times for strength to
    		pass safely through all that is coming and
    		to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
    		(Luke 21:36 REB)
    
    and for those who are doing so to do their utmost to help others to do
    so as well.
    
    What about those that receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
    
>             What about those that receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
>    Third World Countries that don't have access to the Bible in their
>    dialect?  I've heard of large underground churches in China that only
>    have 1-2 pages out of the entire Bible and they *TREASURE* every morsel
>    on those pages.  
    
    	Well, what are you and your religion (or religious organization)
    doing about the problem?  My religion, through the WB&TS, is constantly
    expanding it's efforts to bring the Bible and its teachings [obviously
    as we believe them] to people of the world in their own language.  It's
    no use just fretting and wringing one's hands about the matter. 
    Instead, it's important to be doing something about it.  No matter how
    impossible the task may seem, any task with God's blessing will
    succeed.
    
    	When the communist regimes of eastern Europe fell, the Witnesses
    who were already operating underground simply took the change in
    stride, to their advantage.  At one time no one could have imagined
    that such a thing would have been possible.  Who knows today what
    tomorrow will bring (with respect to these other lands)?
    
>                     The Spirit of God within these believers lead them to
>    know Christ.  My wife's grandfather was illiterate, yet to this day,
>    I've never met another person who has memorized as much of God's Word as
>    he did.  
    
    	That was then, and the "end" hasn't come yet.  Again, what's most
    important is the spiritual state of the living.  You can pose all the
    "what ifs" you want; but its not for man to sort them out.  Man's
    obligation is to be obeying Jesus' commandments, for which there are no
    "what ifs".  Since the "end" hasn't come, there's obviously still a lot
    of work that [true] Christians can and must do.
    
>>    	4) Can a person say he's trusting in Christ if he doesn't
>>    	   follow in his footsteps and carry out his commands to
>>    	   give a witness about the coming Kingdom?  Today, people
>>    	   campaign for politicians because they believe in their
>>    	   abilities and trust them and their ability to govern.
>>    	   Can a Christian say he really trusts in Christ to solve
>>    	   man's problems if he's not willing to bear witness and
>>    	   preach about the Kingdom?
>    
>    I would say no to this as well.  Jesus said if we didn't confess Him
>    before man, He wouldn't confess us before the Father.  God's will is
>    that nobody perish so we must spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
>    
>Romans 10:9
>That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
>thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    
    	Aha!  I knew we could agree on something.  Witnesses view this
    verse virtually the same way that you do.
    
    								-mark.

>    	That's interesting ... but I believe that it oversimplifies what
>    the NT (in particular) really says.  Jude wrote:
>
>    		"... I was fully intending to write to 
>    		you about the salvation we share, when I
>    		found it necessary to take up my pen and
>    		urge you to join in the STRUGGLE for
>    		that faith which God entrusted to his
>    		people once for all." (Jude 3 REB)
    
    Paul also says he does things he doesn't want to do, but that doesn't
    change his salvation.  We all still have our struggles with the Old Man
    (i.e., flesh), but we are still saved according to Romans 10:9-10,
    Ephesians 2:4-9, and the good ole John 3:16.

>    	Jesus was once asked, "are only a few to be saved?" (Luke 13:23
>    REB).  Jesus replied, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow
>    door; for I tell you that many will try to enter but will not succeed"
>    (v.24 REB).  The Greek for "make every effort" literally means
>    "struggle".
    
    ...and He also said many that preach and cast out demons in His name
    would be rejected.  Salvation through Jesus Christ comes from the
    heart.
    
>    	This doesn't mean that one "works" for salvation, as though one can
>    earn it; but there *does* seem to be a clear message that it's
>    necessary to 'work' at one's faith in order to keep it strong and
>    healthy.
    
    Yeah spiritual growth is work.  It requires Prayer, Bible Study,
    Fellowship, and Witnessing.
    
>    Jesus ALSO said "the meek will inherit the earth".  His promise at Luke
>    23:43 to the thief to be with him in "paradise" definitely confirms the
>    earthly hope, for "paradise" was on earth, not in heaven.  The Bible
>    promises *both* a "new heaven" AND a "new earth," both of which are
>    obviously made possible by Christ.  If, as you say,  "all believers"
>    will go to heaven, who will live on the "new earth"?  Would they not be
>    "believers," too?
    
    Chronologically speaking, the new heaven and earth are created after
    the 2nd Coming and the defeat of Satan and his followers.  The church
    will be taken out of the world before the Great Tribulation.  There
    will be some converts during the Great Tribulation, but chances are
    they will be few and martyred.
    
>    	To be blunt, it seems to me that you assume that YOU can choose to
>    go to heaven youself, as though your desire to go there obligates God
>    to take you there.  Since the heavenly hope is a "calling" from God,
>    how can you, by mere desire, compell God to call you to heaven?
    
    Jesus said Himself that He was going to prepare a place for us
    (believers).
    
>    	I believe you have the wrong outlook on the matter.  If a person
>    isn't called to heaven by God, the probability of being in heaven is
>    ZERO.
    
    Even if there are 1B people on earth who believe in God (I'm being
    probably being generous), your probability is still .0001.
    
>    	Heavenly life for humans is a privilege -- and an assignment,
>    really -- but it's NOT a natural right.  It's only a right to those
    
    John 1:12
    
>    God's spirit.  God bestows that right at his discretion; it's not
>    something that man can claim merely by asking (or hoping), any more
    
    Romans 10:9-10 again.  God paid the price so that we can have salvation
    through Him just by asking.  The Bible doesn't say "Call on the name of
    the Lord and you *MIGHT* be saved."  It says you *WILL* be saved.
    
>    than man can simply ask for any other 'gift of the spirit' and expect
>    God to automatically bestow it.
    
    Paul wrote that every believer has 1 gift.
    
>    	Those who go to heaven do so in order to rule with Christ as kings
>    and priests.  Who are you to simply claim that privilege by wanting it?
>    God's theocratic order isn't like human politics, which holds out power
>    to anyone who seeks to grab it.
    
    I'm a child of God.  I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior
    and God has promises in His Word in store for those who accept His Son
    and His atonement.  God doesn't break His promises.
    
    Mike

>    	What about them?  Jesus promised a resurrection of both the
    
    We believe these people will be saved as well just because of their
    acknowledgement of Christ as Lord and Savior and His propitiation for
    their sins.
    
>    	Again, what about them?  Jesus said that the "good news" would be
>    preached to the all the earth, and then the end will come.  Jesus also
>    said that he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him.  He'll take into
>    consideration whatever extenuating circumstances there are as he judges
>    the whole earth in righteousness.
    
    Again I agree that they will also be saved.  Their reward may be
    greater because of their tribulation.
    
>    	Well, what are you and your religion (or religious organization)
>    doing about the problem?  My religion, through the WB&TS, is constantly
    
    First of all, I don't have a religion, I have a relationship.  You
    should know that about BAC's by now ;-)
    
    Secondly, my particular denomination is extremely active in missions
    and getting the Bible out to foreign countries that desperately need
    native translations.  Like many other faiths, the JW's aren't the only
    ones doing this type of work.
    
>    that such a thing would have been possible.  Who knows today what
>    tomorrow will bring (with respect to these other lands)?
    
    Slight tangent, but the door of opportunity into these Communist
    countries appears to be gradually closing.  Another one of the many
    signs of Christ's soon return.
    
>    	That was then, and the "end" hasn't come yet.  Again, what's most
>    important is the spiritual state of the living.  You can pose all the
>    "what ifs" you want; but its not for man to sort them out.  Man's
>    obligation is to be obeying Jesus' commandments, for which there are no
>    "what ifs".  Since the "end" hasn't come, there's obviously still a lot
>    of work that [true] Christians can and must do.
    
    The point behind these "what ifs" is that these people are all saved
    and will inherit the Biblical promises of God for believers.
    
>    	Aha!  I knew we could agree on something.  Witnesses view this
>    verse virtually the same way that you do.
    
    If you're talking about Romans 10:9-10, then you should have assurance 
    of your salvation ;-)
    
    Mike

    re .148 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    Coupled with passages like the Romans Road, the step to a BAC's
>    salvation comes through what is commonly known as the 'sinner's prayer.'
>    Just a simple, sincere prayer from your heart where you acknowledge
>    your sin and God's gift of salvation through Christ's atonement.  It
>    usually goes something like this:
>    
>    "Jesus, come into my heart.  I know that I am a sinner, but I thank You
>    for dying on the cross for my sin.  I ask you to forgive me and cleanse
>    my sin.  Be my personal Lord and Savior.  Help me now, from this day
>    forward, to follow You."
    
    	I've heard about this.
    
    	I do believe it right to ask God to forgive us of our sins; but I
    think these expressions, of man asking Jesus to "come into [one's]
    heart," asking Jesus to be one's own "personal savior," put Jesus at
    man's bidding, rather than man at Jesus' bidding.
    
    	Although Jesus' sacrifice makes salvation possible at a personal
    level, I think this outlook (at expressed in this prayer) makes the
    sinner the center of Christ's activity, which put the focus on the
    wrong thing.  Christ is the center of God's activity, and thus we
    should be lining ourselve up with him, rather than asking him to line
    himself up with us.
    
>    After this, you're saved according to Romans 10:9-10 (and the rest of
>    the Romans road).  From here on out, you study the Bible to grow,
>    follow God's Word, get baptized, etc.  Accepting Christ only takes this
>    simple prayer from the heart, living for Christ takes a lifetime. 
>    God seals you with His Holy Spirit when you're saved and will help
>    guide you through the journey.
    
    	That not the way I read Romans 10.  This passage (10:11ff) relates
    (in reverse order) the progression from having been taught the word to
    the point of salvation.  Paul concludes:
    
    		"So then faith [which saves] does come from
    		from hearing,and hearing through the word
    		of Chist [which, today, happens to be recorded
    		in the Bible]."  (v.17 REB)
    
    If a person hasn't "heard the word" by having read and studied it
    [enough to gain understanding of what's involved], that person's faith
    isn't founded upon anything solid.  You've got the horse before the
    cart.  
    
    	Disciple means 'one that is taught'; and Jesus said for his
    apostles to go to the nations and "teach them to observe all that I
    have commanded you" (Matt 28:20 REB).  As you explain it, a person gets
    saved BEFORE he comes to know what is involved, BEFORE he is taught
    what God's will is.  The emphasis is put on the salvation of the
    individual ["OK, Jesus; first save me, and THEN I'll learn how to do
    God's will"], rather than on the doing of God's will which results in
    salvation.
    
>>    	For those of the "great crowd" who survive the Great Tribulation,
>>    they will never die, and thus will experience, while alive, the
>>    ultimate benefit of having their sins forgiven by seeing their bodies
>>    healed of sin and its effects.
>    
>    Another different view than from the BAC's.  When God's pouring out His
>    wrath during the Great Tribulation, I wouldn't want to be here and I
>    wouldn't with that on anyone.  
    
    	I think what you say here is very revealing ... your views are
    based on what you want (you don't want to be here during the G.T.).
    
>                                   I'd be surprised if anyone lives through
>    it, especially near the end when it becomes a spiritual battle.  I
>    believe the Bible's eschatological passages point to a rapturing of all
>    believers in Christ before the Great Tribulation.  This is a whole
>    other topic in itself, but I believe this is consistent with God not
>    judging the righteous among the wicked (Enoch, Noah, Lot, etc.).
    
    	Again, very telling.  Where's your faith in God's ability to
    save, Mike?  Revelation 7 tells us point blank that a "great crowd"
    will survive the tribulation, doing so because they are "standing
    before the throne" and clearly put their faith in "... God who sits on
    the throne, and to the Lamb" (vs. 9,10 REB).
    
    	The elder said to John:
    
    		"... he who sits on the throne will
    		PROTECT them with his presence."  (v.15 REB)
    
    Your rapture views appear to be based on your desire to escape the
    tribulation because you don't have faith that anyone could survive it
    if they were still on earth.  Revelation tells us plainly that God's
    people WILL survive it because they are "protected" by the "presence"
    of God.
    
    	Noah and Lot are good examples of men who literally survived divine
    destruction while in proximity to the people being destroyed.  At the
    right time God told them what to do, and they were saved.
    
    	The same is true today.  God doesn't need to remove man from the 
    earth in order to save the faithful, since his plan is to remove the
    WICKED from the earth.  The thing about faith is that God DOES require
    us to believe he will save us in situations that, from a human point of
    view, are impossible.
    
    								-mark.

    re 732.152 (FRETZ::HEISER)
    
    I'm still backed up a couple of replies, but allow me to jump ahead ...
    
>    If you're talking about Romans 10:9-10, then you should have assurance 
>    of your salvation ;-)
    
    	You seem AWFULLY concerned about this (assurance of your own
    salvation).  Isn't the assurance of God's promise through the Bible
    sufficient?  Is more than that needed?
    
    	Witnesses don't worry about "assurance of our salvation," because
    we know that if we do our part [having faith in Jehovah through Christ,
    and obey his commandments], God will do his.
    
    								-mark.

    re 732.151 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    Paul also says he does things he doesn't want to do, but that doesn't
>    change his salvation.  We all still have our struggles with the Old Man
>    (i.e., flesh), but we are still saved according to Romans 10:9-10,
>    Ephesians 2:4-9, and the good ole John 3:16.
    
    	Yes, but on this matter of the "old man," Paul [in a related
    passage] wrote:
    
    		"I do not spare my body, but bring it under
    		strict control, for FEAR that after preaching
    		to others I should find myself DISQUALIFIED."
    		(1Cor 9:27 REB)
    
    Paul knew that if he didn't keep up with his struggles, he very well
    might have become "disqualified" and have lost out on salvation.
    
>    Chronologically speaking, the new heaven and earth are created after
>    the 2nd Coming and the defeat of Satan and his followers.  
    
    	To an extent I agree with this ...
    
>                                                               The church
>    will be taken out of the world before the Great Tribulation.  
    
    	The Bible doesn't say this.  This is just a conclusion
    [erroneously] drawn on the basis of scriptures pertaining to the
    resurrection of believers during the Lord's _parousia_.  Jesus didn't
    say this, and Revelation doesn't say it either.  The Great Tribulation
    survivors are said (in the REB) to have "passed THROUGH the great
    ordeal" (Rev 7:14).  The context makes it clear that they ARE Christian
    -- thus it's not true that 'the church' as a whole is taken from the
    earth beforehand.  In order for them to "pass THROUGH" it, they'd have
    to be there, on earth, from start to finish.
    
>                                                                  There
>    will be some converts during the Great Tribulation, but chances are
>    they will be few and martyred.
    
    	It could be true that some believers lose their lives during the
    Great Tribulation, just as they have lost them throughout the
    centuries, especially during times of great unrest; but the Bible seems
    to indicate [because it likens the end of this wicked world to the end
    of the pre-Flood world] that once the G.T. begins, the opportunity for
    people to "convert" will be over -- just as people couldn't get into
    the ark to safety once the flood rains began.
    
>    Jesus said Himself that He was going to prepare a place for us
>    (believers).
    
    	He was talking specifically to those who were taken into the New
    Covenant, who would be assigned a place in heaven by God.  The place
    for most believers is rightfully on the earth, where God first put
    mankind.
    
>>    	I believe you have the wrong outlook on the matter.  If a person
>>    isn't called to heaven by God, the probability of being in heaven is
>>    ZERO.
>    
>    Even if there are 1B people on earth who believe in God (I'm being
>    probably being generous), your probability is still .0001.
    
    	You're still looking at it the wrong way.  A slot in heaven isn't
    something people COMPETE for, as though playing the lottery or some
    other game with only a limitted possible number of winners.  Thus even
    speaking about the 'odds' of going to heaven is ridiculous.  It's NOT
    something left up to chance.  You might as well speak of the 'odds' of
    ancient men of being picked to be prophets.  Those assignments were
    never a matter of competition or random probability; they were
    assignments made by God directly as his choice (as his way of
    accomplishing his will).  Jehovah surveys those faithful to him and
    makes these assignments as he sees fit.  If you don't get one of these
    assignments, there's still plenty else to do.
    
>>    	Heavenly life for humans is a privilege -- and an assignment,
>>    really -- but it's NOT a natural right.  It's only a right to those
>    
>    John 1:12
    
    	You have to look at the whole context [seems we say this a lot]. In
    verse 11, John points out that "his own people [natural Israel] would
    not accept him" (REB) -- speaking collectively.  Therefore, speaking of
    those who, up until that time, DID accept him, "he gave the right to
    become children of God" (REB).  John was simply reporting the facts
    that were true up until that time.
    
    	As I said, it wasn't a natural right, it was one given to them.  No
    one can simply claim it for wanting -- it has to be bestowed.  Since it
    was God's purpose for the 'anointed church' to be called first (which
    is why they are "firstfruits"), naturally the first believers were
    granted this privilege.  It was initially a privilege held out to
    natural Israel alone; but since, as John said, natural Israel rejected
    Jesus, the 'anointed priesthood' that was being formed was populated by
    Gentiles ("grafted into the tree," as Paul said in Romans).
    
    	The formation of the 'anointed church' didn't invalidate God's
    promises for faithful men to "inherit the earth"; it is part of the
    process by which God will bring this promise [for man and the earth]
    to fulfillment.
    
>>    God's spirit.  God bestows that right at his discretion; it's not
>>    something that man can claim merely by asking (or hoping), any more
>    
>    Romans 10:9-10 again.  God paid the price so that we can have salvation
>    through Him just by asking.  The Bible doesn't say "Call on the name of
>    the Lord and you *MIGHT* be saved."  It says you *WILL* be saved.
    
    	Well, just to throw you a curve, going back to the Hebrew
    prophecies about the need to call on Jehovah ["the LORD" in many
    translations] in order to be saved, note what Zephaniah said:
    
    		"Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land,
    		who do his commands; seek righteousness,
    		seek humility; PERHAPS you may be hidden
    		on the day of the wrath of the LORD."  (Zeph 2:3 RSV)
    
    	The above notwithstanding, I'm not arguing that Jehovah or Jesus
    will arbitrarily ignore those who call on them in true worship, so that
    salvation only becomes a maybe.  The real question is, which
    individuals will Jehovah and Christ accept the petitions for salvation
    from?  As you admit, people will call to Jesus, 'Lord, Lord' --
    effectively calling on his name -- and he will cast them off in
    condemnation.  Therefore, merely calling on his name alone isn't a
    guarantee of salvation; otherwise Jesus' words at Matt 7:22 would have
    no meaning.
    
>>    than man can simply ask for any other 'gift of the spirit' and expect
>>    God to automatically bestow it.
>    
>    Paul wrote that every believer has 1 gift.
    
    	I'd be interested in that quote -- because I doubt that Paul wrote
    that that gift was the heavenly calling.
    
>>    	Those who go to heaven do so in order to rule with Christ as kings
>>    and priests.  Who are you to simply claim that privilege by wanting it?
>>    God's theocratic order isn't like human politics, which holds out power
>>    to anyone who seeks to grab it.
>    
>    I'm a child of God.  I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior
>    and God has promises in His Word in store for those who accept His Son
>    and His atonement.  God doesn't break His promises.
    
    	The question isn't whether God will break his promises, but whether
    his promises about heavenly life apply to any particular individual. 
    We know that God promises salvation and eternal life to all who put
    faith in him through Christ; but eternal life on earth is also
    salvation, and the fulfillment of God's promises.
    
    
    								-mark.

    Re: .135
    
>In German, which does not have the letter "Y", and in which the letter
>"J" is pronounced like English "Y", the Tetragrammaton is "JHWH".
>
>The term "Jehovah" originated in Germany, where German "W" is pronounced
>like English "V".
>
>In Hebrew bibles, there were vowel markings on occurences of the Tetra-
>grammaton to represent "Adonai" (Lord) or "Elohim" (God), since this was the
>way it was read in synagogues; YHWH being considered too holy to pronounce.
>
>The vowel markings of "Adonai" were erroneously interposed into the
>Tetragrammaton to create the name "Jahowah" (pronounced Ya-ho-va) which
>was Anglicized as Jehovah.
    
    Thanks for posting this, John.  I have heard about this before but
    failed to bring it up.  Our pastor mentioned it briefly last night
    during Bible study.  
    
    The Hebrews refused to say YHWH because of the 3rd Commandment (taking
    the Lord's name in vain).  The Hebrews had no knowledge of the name
    Jehovah, it was an English creation.  They referred to Him by title:
    "Elohim" - God, "El Shaddai" - God Almighty, "Adonai" - Lord, etc. 
    However, His *name* is YHWH - the I AM.  He is the ever-present one. 
    It is also interesting to note that the Hebrew verb that means to exist
    or be also has "yhwh" in the word.
    
    Some well-meaning JW's, who weren't very well-versed in the Bible nor
    the Biblical languages, adopted that name without realizing that it was
    a man-made term.
    
    Mike

RE:   <<< Note 732.155 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

       
   > 	Yes, but on this matter of the "old man," Paul [in a related
   > passage] wrote:
    
    >		"I do not spare my body, but bring it under
    >		strict control, for FEAR that after preaching
    >		to others I should find myself DISQUALIFIED."
    >		(1Cor 9:27 REB)
    
    >Paul knew that if he didn't keep up with his struggles, he very well
    >might have become "disqualified" and have lost out on salvation.
    


   How does this passage refer to Paul's "losing his salvation"?



 Jim

    re .158 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>    >		"I do not spare my body, but bring it under
>    >		strict control, for FEAR that after preaching
>    >		to others I should find myself DISQUALIFIED."
>    >		(1Cor 9:27 REB)
>    
>    >Paul knew that if he didn't keep up with his struggles, he very well
>    >might have become "disqualified" and have lost out on salvation.
>    
>   How does this passage refer to Paul's "losing his salvation"?
    
    	Paul likened Christian life and goals to the way athletes competed
    in the games to win, and said "You must also run to win."  (v.25 REB)
    He also explained the need to 'stay in shape': "every athlete goes into
    strict training" (v.25 REB).  He concluded that if he didn't control
    his body, his fleshly inclinations, he might become "disqualified" from
    the "prize" -- which is eternal life in God's Kingdom.  If
    "disqualified," he'd obviously NOT be saved.
    
    	I don't quite see why this is so hard to understand.
    
    								-mark.

I don't know for sure, but it is my guess that Jehovah's Witnesses were not
the one who first consider Jehovah as the personal name of God.

It really makes no difference whether they are called Jehovah's Witnesses
or Yahweh's Witnesses or YHWH's Witnesses.  For it all points to the
same God, just as Yesu, Iesu, and Jesus represent the same Child of God.

I'm begining to think, Mike, that your mission in this string is not one of
learning more about Witnesses.

Richard

    re 732.156 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>>In Hebrew bibles, there were vowel markings on occurences of the Tetra-
>>grammaton to represent "Adonai" (Lord) or "Elohim" (God), since this was the
>>way it was read in synagogues; YHWH being considered too holy to pronounce.
    
    	I've heard this too; but the way it's always told, it's almost like
    an urban legend.  Everyone believes it, but no one cites ancient
    sources which verify the origin of the practice.
    
    	I read one study (based on a computer-aided analysis of Bible names
    which include parts of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton) which showed how very
    possible it is for the Tetragrammaton to have had a three-sylable
    pronunciation that corresponds to the vowel points (which DO vary, by
    the way, in the Masoretic text).
    
>>The vowel markings of "Adonai" were erroneously interposed into the
>>Tetragrammaton to create the name "Jahowah" (pronounced Ya-ho-va) which
>>was Anglicized as Jehovah.
    
    	Aside from modern works which simply give this explanation, I'd
    like to see genuine proof that the vowel points WEREN'T supposed to
    represent the real vowel sounds.
    
    	Another fact about the vowel points in the Masoretic text is that
    in most places they are "e-o-a", NOT "a-o-a" (the points for "adonai"
    -- in fact, I don't think they are EVER a-o-a).  A NWT appendix quotes
    the _Theological Wordbook ofthe Old Testament_ (1980) which says the
    Masoretes DID mean to "remind the reader to pronounce _adona(y)_
    regardless of the consonants" -- and notes that "they added e (in place
    of a for other reasons)", but the quote doesn't give what those other
    reasons are.
    
>    The Hebrews refused to say YHWH because of the 3rd Commandment (taking
>    the Lord's name in vain).  
    
    	Wrong -- the Hebrews who lived at the time the Bible was written
    didn't refuse to say YHWH aloud.  This was a tradition/superstition
    that came much later.   You are right, however, that the tradition
    seems to have arisen in connection with the 3rd commandment.
    
>                               The Hebrews had no knowledge of the name
>    Jehovah, it was an English creation.  They referred to Him by title:
>    "Elohim" - God, "El Shaddai" - God Almighty, "Adonai" - Lord, etc. 
    
    	Pardon me, but this is an irrelevant argument.  That's like saying
    the Christians had no knowledge of the name "Jesus."  "Jesus" --
    pronounced GEE' ZUS in modern English -- certainly wasn't the way the
    ancient Greek-speaking Christians said it or spelled it -- but everyone
    accepts the modern Anglicization as suitable.
    
    	It's also true that God is referred to by the titles "Elohim", "El
    Shaddai" and "Addonai" -- but if you check any Hebrew concordance of
    the Bible (like Strong's), you'll find that the Tetragrammaton -- Yhwh
    -- occurs MORE times by itself than all these other titles combined. The
    ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible certainly DID know him by however
    the Tetragrammaton was pronounced.  That they didn't pronounce it as
    "Jehovah" is as relevant as the fact that the Greek Christians didn't
    pronounce Christ's name as "Jesus".
    
>    However, His *name* is YHWH - the I AM.  He is the ever-present one. 
>    It is also interesting to note that the Hebrew verb that means to exist
>    or be also has "yhwh" in the word.
    
    	The form of the verb for "to be" that YHWH takes gives it the
    meaning "he causes to be" -- thus it doesn't just mean that he exists
    (which is self evident), but it means that he is the Creator, the One
    who caused all things to be.
    
>    Some well-meaning JW's, who weren't very well-versed in the Bible nor
>    the Biblical languages, adopted that name without realizing that it was
>    a man-made term.
    
    	I don't mean to sound touchy, but this is an insulting assertion.
    We've always known where the name "Jehovah" has come from.  
    
    	The form "Jehovah" is recognized almost universally in the
    English-speaking world as God's name, just as "Jesus" is.  Jehovah was
    in common use for 100's of years before JWs came along, and it's STILL
    in common usage.  Go to your local library and ask for this week's
    Sunday New York Times.  In the Book Review supplement, you'll find a
    religious add which states [the advertizer's knowledge] that the name
    of the God of the Bible is "Jehovah".  It's as "man made" a term as
    "Jesus."  Both are translations in common use.  Regardless of the
    etymology of the spelling, there's nothing improper about it.  It
    harmonizes with standard English conventions for Anglicizing most
    Hebrew Bible names.
    
    
    								-mark.

>I'm begining to think, Mike, that your mission in this string is not one of
>learning more about Witnesses.
    
    If that's how you feel, then I'll stop participating in this topic.  I
    don't feel that way, I see it as comparing notes.  However, it isn't
    something that I can't easily let go of.
    
    Mike

    re 732.162 and 732.160
    
>>I'm begining to think, Mike, that your mission in this string is not one of
>>learning more about Witnesses.
    
>    If that's how you feel, then I'll stop participating in this topic.  I
>    don't feel that way, I see it as comparing notes.  However, it isn't
>    something that I can't easily let go of.
    
    	Richard, I appreciate the fellow-feeling you show [even though
    we're not 'on the same side'].  Mike, I think you ask some good
    questions.
    
    	If I might make one observation, however, it's that *some* of the
    things you have written are clearly 'out of the can' arguments [written
    by others] that have a deliberate anti-Witness slant to them.  Perhaps
    you are unaware of how deeply you've been influenced by such a bias --
    but I can see it (because it's sooo much like what gets written in
    anti-Witness literature, and believe me, that stuff is UNMISTAKABLE).
    
    	If I might make one suggestion, it would be to set aside the 'out
    of the can' stuff [from pamphlets and what-have-you], and ask questions
    that come right from your own heart and knowledge.  That way, all of
    your questions will genuinely reflect a desire for objective
    information, rather than a mere confirmation of an already established
    [negative] opinion.
    
    								-mark.

    .163
    
    -mark,
    
    "out of the can" or not, if one is convicted that the JW doctrine is
    at best a "similar" path, not "the" path, then you can rest assured
    it's from the heart.

>    	Richard, I appreciate the fellow-feeling you show [even though
>    we're not 'on the same side'].  Mike, I think you ask some good
>    questions.

Very well, then.  Previous remark retracted.

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 732.160 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> I'm begining to think, Mike, that your mission in this string is not one of
> learning more about Witnesses.
  
        But he is giving the opportunity to others (myself, for
        example) to learn more about the Witnesses (which is not
        particularly helping Mike's side of the argument, IMHO).

        Bob

    re .164 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
>    "out of the can" or not, if one is convicted that the JW doctrine is
>    at best a "similar" path, not "the" path, then you can rest assured
>    it's from the heart.
    
    	The thing is that the stuff that's taken 'out of the can' really
    comes from what's in the hearts of the original authors.  When it's
    typed in verbatim, only the effort 'comes from the heart' (of the
    typist), not the words themselves.
    
    	When Jesus was before Pilate, Pilate:
    
    		"summoned Jesus.  'So you are the king
    		of the Jews?' he said."  Jesus replied,
    		'Is that your own question, or have
    		others suggested it to you?'" (John 18:34 REB)
    
    We could argue that Jesus should have just answered the question, since
    it could well have been a valid question coming from anyone -- but
    obviously Jesus thought it important to determine whether the question
    was from Pilate's own heart, or 'out of the can,' it having been
    suggested by someone else.
    
    	If you know why Jesus asked Pilate whether he was making up his own
    questions, then you will also know why I consider it important that
    Mike is making up his own questions, too.
    
    
    								-mark.

This may sound like a really stupid question.  It wouldn't be my first.

Have Witnesses ever considered changing their official name to Yahweh's
Witnesses or something other than Jehovah's Witnesses?

Shalom,
Richard

    re 732.168 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)/Richard
    
>Have Witnesses ever considered changing their official name to Yahweh's
>Witnesses or something other than Jehovah's Witnesses?
    
    	I doubt it.
    
    	Besides, people at large are probably LESS familiar with the
    spelling "Yahweh" than they are with "Jehovah".  If we called ourselves
    "Yahweh's Witnesses," people might think we're a cult or something. 
    ;-)
    
    
    								-mark.

re:  .168  Richard

>This may sound like a really stupid question.

I've been told that the only "stupid" question is the one you don't ask.  :-)


>Have Witnesses ever considered changing their official name to Yahweh's
>Witnesses or something other than Jehovah's Witnesses?

Until 1931 the Witnesses were known simply as "Bible Students."  Jehovah's
Witnesses is the name we changed *to* (or adopted).  First, let's look at the
name rendered in various languages.

English                      Jehovah's Witnesses
Albanian                     D�shmitar�t e Jehovait
Croatian                     Jehovini svjedoci
Danish                       Jehovas Vidner
Dutch                        Jehovah's Getuigen
Finnish                      Jehovan todistajat
Itialian                     Testimoni di Geova
Turkish                      Yehova'nin Sahitleri
Vietnamese                   Nh�n-ch�ng Gi�-h�-va
Tahitian                     Ite no Iehova
Samoan, Tuvaluan             Molimau a Ieova
Rarotongan                   Au Kite o Iehova
New Guinea Pidgin            Ol Witnes Bilong Jehova
Palauan                      reSioning er a Jehovah
Marshallese                  Dri Kennan ro an Jeova
Indonesian                   Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa
Fijian                       Vakadinadina i Jiova
Bicol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon,
Samar-Leyte, Tagalog         Mga Saksi ni Jeova
Afrikaans                    Jehovah se Getuies
Cibemba                      Inte sha kwa Yehova
Efik                         Mme Ntiense Jehovah
French                       T�moins de J�hovah
Ga                           Yehowa Odasefoi
Kiluba                       Ba Tumoni twa Yehova
Kirundi                      Ivyabona vya Yehova
Ndonga                       Oonzapo dhaJehova
Swahili                      Mashahidi wa Yehova
Tswana                       Basupi ba ga Jehofa
Xhosa                        amaNgqina ka Yehova
Zulu                         oFakazi BakaJehova

You can clearly see what Mark was talking about when he said that most people
would be more familiar with the name Jehovah, rather than Yahweh.  However,
*all* of them *are* translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, YHWH.  And when
Hebrew speaking/writing Witnesses express the name, it is (said/spelled in
Hebrew) Yahweh's Witnesses.  I'd enter it in Hebrew letters, but I don't know
if this terminal (or operator) has the capability.  In any case, when the name
is written in Hebrew, the Tetragrammaton is clearly visible.

Richard, Jehovah's Witnesses is not simply the name of a group of people like
Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Pentacostals, etc.  The name shows what each
one of us individually *are*, as regards what we do (witness) and whose wit-
nesses we are (Jehovah's).  Also, in that regard, we endeavor to follow closely
the steps of Jesus, the one called "the Faithful Witness."  (1 Pe 2:21; Re 1:5)


Steve  (I was very glad I wasn't drinking anything
        when I read Mark's reply.  ;^)  )
      

re 1078.8

ZZ    Teachings from Jehovah's Witnesses are only based on the Bible
ZZ    so you can check it out for yourself.
    
;   What about the Watchtower?  Don't alot of the doctrinal followings of
;   the Jehovah Witnesses come from them??

Jack,

Just to explain, each week we do a congregational Bible study with the
aid of a Watchtower article. This way the same study is conducted in
all congregations throughout the world. However, it is an important
individual responsibility to check out for oneself what is being said 
from God's Word. I like these studies for it gives all congregation
members an opportunity to express their own feelings about the things
they are learning from God's Word, rather than just a selective few
were everyone else has to listen.

Obviously, the interpretation from the Watchtower maybe be different
to other organisations but they do stress personal study of the Bible
to make sure of what is being said. Those that write the articles are
not infallible but they view that God will give to his servants more
"light" on his Word as time progresses (compare Proverbs 4:18). 

So yes, we do get doctrinal teachings from the pages of the Watchtower.
But these teachings are always given scriptural reasons, for we want
to be taught by God and led by Jesus rather than learn teachings of
men.

Many argue that you can interpret God's Word as you like. For that reason
Jesus gave a yardstick, that is what fruit is produced. If God is shedding
light on His Word to his servants and they apply it then only good fruit
will be produced. 

Phil.

    Phil,
    
    Nice note.  
    
                          Patricia

    Have you ever disagreed with a study using the Watchtower?  Have you
    talked to anybody who disagreed with a studdy and if so, how was it
    received by the church elders?
    
    -Jack

re .172

Thank you Patricia

re .173

 Jack,

 From my own perspective, you have to understand that I view
 the writers of the Watchtower as those that God is using
 as a channel to teach. The purpose of studying is to be
 taught and make adjustments, take on the mind of Christ
 if you like. It is a provision from Jehovah. I think I have 
 had one disagreement over the last 6 years, however further 
 study showed that I had to make adjustments to my view and 
 not the other way round. If one doesn't understand a certain 
 study then I'm sure the elders would say that it is best to 
 wait on Jehovah. That is wait until one understands the point 
 through further personal study or Jehovah corrects the issue.
 More than likely they would take time to explain the matter. 

 If someone makes continous issue with the studies then no
 doubt the elders would take them aside and talk to them
 about it. If a person continues to voice disagreement
 then a person may be reprimanded and depending on the
 seriousness even disfellowshipped. 1 Corinthians 1:10 NWT
 "Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and 
 that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU 
 may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line 
 of thought." It would be the elders responsibility to look 
 out for those that are a disrupting influence that may cause 
 divisions among the flock. Ephesians 4:5 NWT says that there 
 is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;".

 At the end of the day, belonging to a religious organisation
 is a personal choice. I feel that if one has major 
 disagreements then one has to ask, is this the channel that 
 God is using? (their fruit will identify them). If yes, then 
 oneself needs to make adjustment, if no then get out and look 
 for the right organisation. 

 Phil.

    Stepfather 'hit boy with riding crop for giggling'
        The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 12 July 1995  Home News

    By David Graves

    A JEHOVAH'S Witness beat his 11-year-old stepson with a riding crop if
    he giggled during Bible studies at home, a court heard yesterday.

    He also chastised the boy for supporting Lincoln City football team,
    because he claimed their mascot, the Lincoln Imp, was a symbol of the
    devil and they were "Satan's team", Lincoln Crown Court was told.

    The 46-year-old man, who cannot be named, was also said to have beaten
    his 14-year-old daughter with the crop for dating a boy who was not a
    Jehovah's Witness.

    Steven Lowne, prosecuting, told the jury: "The regime in this household
    went beyond reasonable punishment. Having a riding crop lurking in the
    background to cause pain is going beyond lawful chastisement. It
    amounts to assault and cruelty.

    "Sometimes they were hit with the metal part of the crop. The boy was
    struck so hard he was marked by the crop over 60 times."

    Mr Lowne added: "If the children cried in bed they were struck all the
    harder so they had a reason to cry." 

    The boy, who was allowed to befriend only other children of Jehovah's
    Witnesses, told the jury: "We would get hit for laughing when we should
    not have, like when we were studying the Bible.

    "We would have one warning and then the next time we laughed we would
    get the riding crop. Then if we carried on laughing it would get harder
    and harder."

    The boy claimed he was hit mainly on the hands, but sometimes on the
    legs if he was "really misbehaving".

    His stepsister told the court: "I had a boyfriend and that is really
    not allowed in the Jehovah's Witnesses. If I spoke to him I got the
    crop for that. He wasn't a Jehovah's Witness."

    When he was interviewed by police their father claimed the crop was
    used mostly as a sanction but occasionally as a punishment.

    He denies two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He and
    his wife, both from Lincoln, are also charged with cruelty.

    The case continues.

    
    So, what's your point Mike?  Do you have children?  Do you spank them? 
    Do you limit their associations with others?  Do you insist on a
    certain standard of behavior?
    
    jeff

    
    Is this note trying to say that Jehovah's Witnesses beat their children
    or that the government is wrongly interfering with a parent's right to
    raise his children as he sees proper? I don't know which is despised
    more, "cults" or the government. 

    Eric

    I didn't write it so I don't have a point.

    
    So it was a pointless entry...
    

It has occurred to me that we have very few of our JW friends left participating
in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.

I am therefore especially grateful for Phil Yerkess' participation in the
conference.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    Mike,  what was your point for entering that article into this topic?
    
    jeff

         
    It's very difficult for me to make a reply on the news report that Mike
    entered. Often Jehovah's Witnesses are frowned upon for supposedly
    giving severe discipline and depraving their children (eg no Christmas
    or birthdays , etc). However, my own experience is that they are very
    loving to their children. This is especially true of spending quality
    time with them. They are also well aware of the dangers that children
    face today, so encourage them to make a stand for themselves rather
    than give into peer pressure. They often give unexpected presents to
    their children, they may even have their own special family day were
    presents are given by it's members. It's unique and special to them.
    
    At our kingdom hall many children feel comfortable in coming up to me
    and talking. They always have smiling faces and none seem solemn. 
    Dispcipline is important, but different forms of punishment fit 
    different children. A spank will have little if no effect on one and
    yet on another it will be appropriate. The parent is the one that knows
    the child and discipline should be administered in a loving manner, for
    example the child should be aware of why they are being punished.
    
    Now I havn't heard anything about this case reported in the news. It
    should be noted that the British press (I hope I've got this right,
    that it's talking about Lincoln England) can be very sensationalist 
    and spanking can be a very sore subject here in Europe. But it's very
    difficult to comment on this case and a horse whip does seem excessive
    in my opinion.
    
    Phil.

re 1187.21


ZZZ   -< In the day God created the heavens and the earth >-
    
;    Right.  No indefinite article in the Hebrew language.  So why do you
;    put an indefinite article in John 1:1?  You can answer in the JW topic.
;    Thanks Phil.

Jack,

Well I don't think you would ask a trick question. John 1:1 was if I remember
rightly originally written in Greek. But, yes there was no indefinite article
in this langauge. A question I would ask you first is, does your own translation 
of the Christian Greek scriptures that you read have an indefinite article in 
any of the texts (not John 1:1) and if so why? seeing as you say there wasn't 
an indefinite article in the original language.

Phil. 

    "In THE beginning was THE word, and THE word was with God and THE word
    was God."  My understanding is the last two words, WAS GOD, connotes a
    definite article so it would actually read, "...the word was THE God."
    
    The Watchtower version I thought said, "...the word was A god"  I was
    just asking for clarification and how this is reconciled in the greek
    (thank you, not hebrew).
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

re .185

Jack,

From what I got out of the your initial question, you asked 
why the translation popular to Jehovah's Witnesses could 
use an indefinite article in John 1:1 when there wasn't an 
indefinite article in the original Greek language. I 
answered you with a question seeing that I'm sure that
the translation popular to you, also uses an indefinite
article in other texts. Answer this and you will have
the answer to your original question.

Your question in .185 is different, you say the last two words
of John 1:1 connotes a definite article. You would agree that 
the Greek langauge has a definite article, this is used in the 
first occurrance of the noun theos (god) which is preceded with 
the word ton (the) so refers to Almighty God, no such definite
article is used in the second occurance of theos. It is
my understanding that context would determine whether or not
an indefinite article is used when a predicate noun is not
proceded by the definite article. Now if a definite article
was interpreted, then this would contradict the proceding
clause, "and The word was with God", someone who is "with"
another person cannot be the same as that person. 

I have to go home now so to quickly finish, John 1:1 is
describing the quality of The Word theos "divine","god-like"
or "a god" and not that he is Almighty God "ton theos".

For this reason many other translators (not Jehovah's Witnesses)
have translated John 1:1 similarly for example

"and the Word was a god" The New Testament in an improved version
published in 1808 Upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's New
Translation.

"and a god was the word" 1864 The Emphatic Diaglott

"and the word was divine" 1935 The Bible - An American translation,
by JMP Smith and EJ Goodspeed.


Phil. 

	

 I have seen, held in my hands and read, a NWT of the Bible that had
 for John 1:1 "And the Word was God".  I believe it was published in
 the late 1950's.




 Jim

    Phil:
    
    Charles Russell states the word is used in the perfect indefinite
    sense.  There is no such thing in the greek.  The actual translation
    says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God and
    God was the word."  The last usage of the word God is an anatherous
    (sp?) noun connoting quality and the time preceeding that God is used
    as a distinctive noun.  So the verse shows a distinction between God
    and the word but at the same time it shows the two words as being
    equal in quality.
    
    Consider Titus 2:13 - "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
    appearing of the Great God and our savior Jesus Christ."  Tou Theou is
    admitted by Watchtower theologians as referring to Jesus Christ.  THE
    Great God.
    
    -Jack

re .188

Jack,


It looks like we agree with something in John 1:1, that is
the second occurrance is pointing to the Word's quality.
Like the Almighty he is divine (theos), but also consider
the angels are seen as having the same quality (Hewbrews
2:7, Psalms 8:5).  

;    Consider Titus 2:13 - "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
;    appearing of the Great God and our savior Jesus Christ."  Tou Theou is
;    admitted by Watchtower theologians as referring to Jesus Christ.  THE
;    Great God.

Then I would ask you to back up this statement.

Phil.

re .187

Jim,

I would find this very doubtful. Even so, Jehovah's Witnesses don't just
use the NWT. For many years they have used the KJV. The NWT is a popular
among Jehovah's Witnesses because it is in modern language and thus
readily understandable and restores God's name something God had originally
inspired the Bible writers to write (so it's not a translation tainted by 
the traditions or superstitions of men).

I have about 6 different translations at home of which I'm not frightened
to use.


Phil.

 As I said, I have seen it, held it in my hands and read it.  





 Jim

ZZ    Then I would ask you to back up this statement.
    
    Phil, I have a copy of this.  It is the New World Translation, 1961
    Edition, Page 1365, Appendix 6E.  I just called Michele to read it to
    me but it is a few paragraphs so I will get it and post it on Monday.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Phil:
    
    Yes, I do believe their is merit to recognizing a problem and foregoing
    a dogmatic belief that had been held for years.  It took direct
    revelation from Jesus Christ to make Paul understand Christ's
    fulfillment of the law.  
    
    However, I must state this.  If I were in your shoes Phil, I would
    deeply call into question a leadership who dogmatically pushed a
    doctrine that not only was unprovable, but clearly against Christ's
    admonition for us not to know the times and dates.  We were simply to
    watch for the signs.  It is clear to me that Russell broke this
    admonition by stating that 1914 would, "end the world as we know it".  
    We are still under a cloud of sin and the World wars we faced don't
    even pale to the great tribulation ahead.  
    
    -Jack

>    We were simply to watch for the signs.  

    That's what they did, and they saw signs.

>    admonition by stating that 1914 would, "end the world as we know it".  

    And the world *did* end as they knew it.  WWI brought down 4(?)
    empires and millions died.  It also sowed the seeds of WWII.

    Are we having fun yet?

    Tom

 Z    And the world *did* end as they knew it.  WWI brought down 4(?)
 Z    empires and millions died.  It also sowed the seeds of WWII.
    
    Tom, are you familiar with Watchtower history...at all?
    
    Tom, Charles Taze Russell made a prediction in the late 1800's that in
    1914, the Watchtower society would go through persecution and the Lord
    would remove the Watchtower Society from this earth.  So, yes, The
    world certainly did change...just as it changes everyday.  1914 was of
    no significance or consequence to the Watchtower Society.  Incidently,
    Charles Russell was a good, hard working, honest individual.  He was a
    gentleman who was simply way off on his understanding of Eschatology.
    
    In reference to his prediction after it never came about, Russell was
    quoted as saying, "I made an ass of myself."  It takes alot of
    integrity to do something like this.  
    
    Just as an aside Tom, I detect your tone to be one of defensiveness. 
    In case you aren't aware, one of the tenets of Christianity is to seek
    truth.  Christianity is not a mutual admiration society where we all do
    our own thing.  It is a commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.  What
    better way of displaying love can there be, but to point out possible
    error in understanding the nature of God?  I get directed much in my
    own life.
    
    -Jack

re .193

    Jack,

;    However, I must state this.  If I were in your shoes Phil, I would
;    deeply call into question a leadership who dogmatically pushed a
;    doctrine that not only was unprovable, but clearly against Christ's
;    admonition for us not to know the times and dates.  We were simply to
;    watch for the signs.  It is clear to me that Russell broke this
;    admonition by stating that 1914 would, "end the world as we know it".  

    I have enjoyed talking to you in the past, but what you wrote above
    isn't like you. We are both sincere in our belief's and it would
    seem unappropriate to even suggest that either of us hasn't studied
    deeply the things we believe in, no?.

    Even so, I can understand your confusion because like the Bible
    students back then they felt that Armageddon would quickly follow
    the "end of the Gentiles" and the throning of Jesus in the heavens.
    This is what Charles Taze Russell and the Bible students were pointing 
    to.

    Like the time of the "Anointed One" those keeping watch were expecting
    the Messiah to free them from the yoke of the Romans (compare 1:6)
    it wasn't till later at Pentecost 33CE that they began to understand
    God's will better. Further examination for the few Bible students
    was that during the last days, a great kingdom proclaiming work would 
    have to take place earthwide which would be over a long period of time
    (compare Matthew 24:14), this in itself would be part of the composite
    sign. In fact it would be like in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37),
    now we know from Peter that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness"
    and that it was over a long period of time from when the instruction
    was given to build the Ark and them entering it. Also being a preacher
    he would have told the inhabitants of God's intentions.

    Further confusion comes from the Greek word "Parousia" being translated
    as "coming" and not "presence" in Matthew 24:37. Parousia as a literal
    meaning of "being alongside." Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
    gives "presence, of persons" as it's first definition of parousia. One
    can check Phillipians 2:12, where Paul contrasts his presence (parousia)
    with his absence (apousia). The Greek word translated as "coming" in 
    verse 30 is different "erkhomenon". Some translators use "coming" for
    both Greek words, were as others are more careful to convey the 
    difference between the two.

    Hence, what Charles T. Russell was pointing to was Jesus' enthronement 
    in heaven and an end of the Gentile times. He wasn't saying that it was
    the end in that Jesus was coming to excute judgment at Armageddon,
    however the Bible students did have a misconception that end would
    shortly follow. 

    The Bible students pointing to 1914 came from an interpretation of
    a major fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 4 which had its 
    minor fulfillment with king Nebuchadnezzar.

    Now as you say one cannot prove it, and this is true for the things
    were to happen in the heavenly realm. However, Jesus' composite sign
    was to be an indication that he is reigning in kingdom power. Take 
    Psalms 110:1,2 NWT "The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: 'Sit at 
    my righthand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.' 
    The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:] 
    'Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.'" and Revelation 12:9-12 NWT 
    "So down the great dragon was hurled , the original serpent, the one 
    called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth, 
    he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
    And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: 'Now have come to pass the 
    salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority 
    of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, 
    who accuses them day and night before our God! And they conquered him 
    because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their 
    witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 
    On this account be glad, you heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe to 
    the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having 
    great anger, knowing he has a short period of time." Therefore, Jesus gave 
    signs of kingly presence so that we would understand that we are living in 
    what the Bible terms the "last days" (2 Timothy 3:1). He foresaw that it 
    would be a time of woe for the earth, wars, food shortages and pestilence,
    and these things would be just a beginning of the end times. From the 
    heavenly realm he would be directing the kingdom preaching work, ie present
    as king "subduing among the midst of his enemies", helping persons to see 
    the need to repent before the kingdom of God replaces the current system 
    that is being misled or closely influcened by Satan the Devil (Daniel 2:44, 
    2 Corinthians 4:4, Matthew 4:17). As in the days of Noah the majority would
    take no note (Matthew 24:37-19).

;    We are still under a cloud of sin and the World wars we faced don't
;    even pale to the great tribulation ahead.

    True, but World wars are indication of the season we are living (compare
    Matthew 24:32,33). And as Matthew 25:15-30 with the illustration of the
    talents shows, if one knows what season they are living in and sound
    no warning how will their master react to them when he arrives?. Further,
    what if one overlooks the full composite sign as nothing?. These signs
    were given for a reason.  

    Phil.


    Book used for understanding of Greek word "Parousia" was Reasoning From
    The Scriptures.
  

     Z   I have enjoyed talking to you in the past, but what you wrote above
     Z   isn't like you. We are both sincere in our belief's and it would
     Z   seem unappropriate to even suggest that either of us hasn't studied
     Z   deeply the things we believe in, no?.
    
    Oh goodness, this isn't what I was trying to convey at all.  I have no
    doubt that you have studied the things you believe in.  I would venture
    to say you have studied quite intently on the matter.  I apologize for 
    mis-stating the above.
    
    I believe that like any church, the Jehovah's Witnesses have a core set
    of beliefs.  It is upon these beliefs, i.e. the non-deity of Jesus
    Christ, the Tribulation or the Time of Jacob's Trouble,
    Dispensationalism, Prophecy...., all these things are a foundation for
    a doctrine.  If any of these core beliefs are incorrect, then it could
    potentially be like going on a highway in the wrong direction.  Then
    all the turnoffs are to no avail.  Did the Bible students set a proper
    foundation for which the church to build?  We know that Jesus is the
    Word and therefore, truth must be that foundation.   
    
    I believe for example, that Hebrews 1 is the greatest composite of the
    person of Jesus Christ, his very nature.  Taking this in harmony with
    scripture throughout Biblical texts, I am lead to believe that Jesus 
    is in fact the Alpha and Omega, the very person mentioned in Isaiah 6,
    Colossians 1, and many other texts.  He was preeminent above all
    things. 
    
    -Jack

re.197


;    Oh goodness, this isn't what I was trying to convey at all.  I have no
;    doubt that you have studied the things you believe in.  I would venture
;    to say you have studied quite intently on the matter.  I apologize for 
;    mis-stating the above.


     Jack,

     Apoligies accepted, as I said it didn't sound like you. It was the 
     "If I was in your shoes" that I was sensitive to and I now concede
     that I may have been a bit harsh in reacting to that.
    
;    I believe for example, that Hebrews 1 is the greatest composite of the
;    person of Jesus Christ, his very nature.  Taking this in harmony with
;    scripture throughout Biblical texts, I am lead to believe that Jesus 
;    is in fact the Alpha and Omega, the very person mentioned in Isaiah 6,
;    Colossians 1, and many other texts.  He was preeminent above all
;    things.

      Rather than making things personal, I prefer this approach in pointing
      to the scriptures an allowing the reader to discern for themselves.
      

      Phil.

     

================================================================================
Note 1234.54         Web sites and other internet resources             54 of 54
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Mirthful Mystic"                  14 lines   5-FEB-1997 12:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.47

>    Richard; This sounds like a cheap shot. It's implying some were killed
>    by Jehovah's Witnesses. Witnesses do NOT execute people for their
>    faith, or for any other reason.

Robin,

	When I said 'almost none were killed by Jehovah's Witnesses,' it
was meant tongue in cheek.  I know Jehovah's Witnesses have never done
such a thing.  I was simply reinforcing the absurdity of the notion.

Richard

 Z   Jehovah Witnesses are often disparaged because
 Z   of their stand on blood, but how many persons actually take time and
 Z   fully look to why they have this belief?.
    
    Phil, the Watchtower society has changed their position on so many
    issues.  Now I understand that spirituality is an evolving process, and
    we all change our minds from time to time. 
    
    The core problem I have on the blood issue, as is shown on the web
    page, is that transfusions which were at one time not allowed by the
    Watchtower Society...
    
X    However, the Watchtower Society's ban on organ transplants lasted only
X    a bit under thirteen years.
X    In 1980 it was quietly repealed. The March 15, 1980, WATCHTOWER said,
X    on page 31, "there is
X    no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human
X    tissue." Recent Watchtower
X    Society publications applaud transplants as procedures that have
X    "helped" people. (AWAKE!
X    August 22, 1989, page 6)
    
    Now Phil, I can respect a belief system of a certain church...but just
    how long do you think it will be before blood transfusions, just as
    organ donations which were for 13 years considered cannibalism become
    allowed?  I'll bet you anything it will happen in the near future.  Now
    imagine...the waste of human lives!  What a travesty.  
    
    -Jack

>When I said 'almost none were killed by Jehovah's Witnesses,' it
>was meant tongue in cheek. 

Great, now you tell me. Jehovah Witnesses kill people by putting their
tongues in other people's cheeks.

And to think I've been inviting them into my house all these years.

8*)  8*)

 Z   I know Jehovah's Witnesses have never done
 Z   such a thing.  I was simply reinforcing the absurdity of the notion.
    
    Richard, would you say the many who died earlier this century because
    they couldn't get organ donations due to Watchtower doctrine are
    victims of manslaughter?
    
    -Jack

>    allowed?  I'll bet you anything it will happen in the near future.  Now
>    imagine...the waste of human lives!  What a travesty.  

    How do you think the Witnesses feel about this issue?  Just take your
    statement and replace "lives" with "souls".  They have biblical
    reasons to believe they way they do.

    Would you prefer someone's life or someone's soul be saved?

    Tom

    PS: This is not to say I agree.

re .55

Jack,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but by looking to
such sources as this web site as your only source of information
you are only interested in proving Jehovah's Witnesses wrong in
a point of view that is alien to you. If you understood why
Jehovah's Witnesses decline blood transfusions then you would
understand that they would never change their mind regarding the
command to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29). 

About allegations of previously not allowing transfusions, i can't
comment but it does seem like something made up in ignorance.
Transfusions are allowed but not if they contain blood.

Phil.

re.59

That's an interesting application of Acts 15:20. What do you
think was meant at the time given they weren't into blood
transfusions? 

ace

    |And to think I've been inviting them into my house all these years.
    
    They come to my house, but we talk outside in the yard.
    
2 John 1:10  
    If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
 into your house, neither bid him God speed:

    Z    statement and replace "lives" with "souls".  They have biblical
    Z    reasons to believe they way they do.
    
    Tom, I understand this.  However, it is important to keep in mind that
    the verse in Acts 15 regarding the abstaining from meats offered to
    idols, from blood, etc., has nothing...nada to do with blood
    transfusions.  Furthermore, understand that organ donations are
    saturated with blood from the donor and certain vaccinations, which are
    now allowed are composed of certain blood biproducts.  The verse in
    question is in the context of idolatrous practices of eating
    blood...which is something expressly forbidden under the Mosaic law. 
    And as a final point, blood is in meat which is a staple of our society
    as well as that of ancient Israel.  The levitical priests would never
    have been able to completely drain the sacrifice of all blood.
    
    Z    Would you prefer someone's life or someone's soul be saved?
    
    This is a rhetorical question.  I admire a zeal for God as long as it
    is based on knowledge.  This belief is not based on knowledge. 
    Furthermore, the concept of losing one's soul over a blood transfusion
    shows a misconception of Jesus' redemptive power over conquering
    death.
    
    -Jack

Z    I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but by looking to
Z    such sources as this web site as your only source of information
Z    you are only interested in proving Jehovah's Witnesses wrong in
Z    a point of view that is alien to you.
    
    Phil, no I don't take it the wrong way, but at the same time, I
    respectfully disagree with you.  There is a local church here in the
    Boston area that INSISTED musical instruments in worship was sin.  They
    sang acapella for years.  The teaching has recently changed but it was
    something I disagreed with...not because it is foreign to me, but
    because there was no biblical precedent to support such a matter...as
    is also the case with the blood transfusion issue.  I realize that 
    resistance to change is great within our nature, but I don't resist a
    foreign teaching unless my resistance has merit...which I believe it
    does.
    
    If in fact the blood issue (no pun intended) changes within the next
    few years, I as a member would really focus on the potential greatness
    of those who died nobelly, yet also in vain.  
    
    -Jack

 Z   2 John 1:10  
 Z   If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive
 Z   him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
    
    I think the idea behind this verse is don't allow them to come into the
    house to teach you.  One can allow them in, but you control the
    conversation.
    
    -Jack

    re 1234.55 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
>    The core problem I have on the blood issue, as is shown on the web
>    page, is that transfusions which were at one time not allowed by the
>    Watchtower Society...
>    
>X    However, the Watchtower Society's ban on organ transplants lasted only
>X    a bit under thirteen years.
>X    In 1980 it was quietly repealed. The March 15, 1980, WATCHTOWER said,
>X    on page 31, "there is
>X    no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human
>X    tissue." Recent Watchtower
>X    Society publications applaud transplants as procedures that have
>X    "helped" people. (AWAKE!
>X    August 22, 1989, page 6)
>    
>    Now Phil, I can respect a belief system of a certain church...but just
>    how long do you think it will be before blood transfusions, just as
>    organ donations which were for 13 years considered cannibalism become
>    allowed?  I'll bet you anything it will happen in the near future.  Now
>    imagine...the waste of human lives!  What a travesty.
    
    May I jump in?
    
    I grant that these arguments don't originate with you Jack, but
    they don't really argue the point of why JWs believe as we do about
    blood transfusions, or why our view on blood is wrong (i.e.,
    non-Biblical).  It's true that both organ transplants and blood
    transfusions are both medical issues, but the reasons behind the
    published positions on both are different.  Their only similarity is
    that they are both medical issues.
    
    The original article which expressed the WTS's initial position on
    organ transplants argued that it was obvious that when God created man,
    he never intended for man to ever have to need an organ transplant. Had
    Adam and Eve remained obedient, they would have continued alive, in
    perfect health, forever.  Had they sired the human race in perfection,
    as intended, humanity would never have sunk to the point it is at, now,
    which requires us to take the organs of others for survival.  Though
    modern medicine performs transplants for altruistic purposes, the
    article stated that such practices were still "cannibalism", and thus,
    must be viewed in a negative light by God.  [This is my summary of the
    article's point, which I'll have to reread for more exact quotes.]
    
    Personally, to this day I tend to agree with this basic point, that no
    matter what 'spin' we put on the practice, it *is* still a form of
    "cannibalism".  (Whether we can conscientiously justify it is another
    matter, however.)
    
    Now, the question is, does the Bible *really* contain enough evidence
    to establish that such a practice is catagorically wrong, and that it
    must either explicitly or implicitly be forbidden?  Though acting in
    'good faith' at the time of the first article, a re-examination of the
    issues was conducted, and the conclusion was reached, as stated above,
    that "there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in
    of other human tissue."  Thus, at best (or worst), it's now a
    conscience issue.  Each one has to bear the responsibility before God
    for accepting a transplant (as well as refusing one).
    
    Of course, eventually, we all die.  So no transplant really "saves" us
    for very long.  Not all survive the process (and some may argue that
    there are ethical issues over donor selection, as the Mickey Mantle
    liver-transplant indicates).  And given that God (and Christ) have the
    power to heal any problem instantly, they probably do view our human
    efforts both as paltry and barbaric.  But, the above notwithstanding,
    again, the Bible just doesn't give us enough information to discern
    what their viewpoint *really is*.  Thus the change in position from
    "not allowed" to "not disallowed".
    
    The reasons for the JW position on blood are viewed, by JWs, as being
    far more clear cut, that is, far more explicit, such that (when *we*
    look at the Bible) we discern a clear prohibition on the consumption of
    blood to sustain life, whether by eating (the natural way) or by
    medical means (the 'unnatural', or manmade way).
    
    The argument presented by this other sight is primarily rhetorical,
    namely:
    
    		If the WTS was so sure over organ transplants
    		at one point, yet changed its mind, what's to
    		say that its surety on blood today won't also
    		change tomorrow?
    
    Well, with arguments like this, we might as well also argue that JWs
    might believe in the trinity tomorrow, or the immortality of the soul,
    or eternal hellfire, since we are also sure of these things today, yet
    we've changed our mind on a few other things, so why not eventually
    these?
    
    These particular things will NOT change among JWs, for we feel the
    basis for them is solid, and have stood the test of time (and the
    opportunity to reassess and/or reconfirm them).  The reason they won't
    change has to do with the scriptural basis for them.  Now, obviously
    people argue with JWs about these things all the time, but JWs never
    budge, because the basis of these beliefs is sure (i.e., they are
    viewed as axiomatic, whereas the view on transplants was not, but
    rather, was a conclusion of faith -- though made in good faith -- that
    was not based upon scriptures that could be viewed unambiguously in
    black and white terms).
    
    The bottom line (yes there is one) is that you have to examine each
    issue on its own merits, and not in comparision with others, which may
    lead to false comparisions (as this one is).
    
    It's probably also worth mentioning that the medical community is
    itself providing greater and greater medical support to the JW stand on
    blood.  Bloodless surgery techniques that were developed, in large
    measure, to treat JWs, are now being used in many hospitals to treat
    non-JWs.  Blood avoidance (and/or minimumization) is gaining greater 
    popularity, not just due to the desire of people to avoid AIDS, but
    because any opportunity to cut down on the need for blood is recognized
    as beneficial.  There are quite a few hospitals in the USA and
    elsewhere which have opened bloodless medicine facilities for JWs and
    non-JWS.  Use Alta Vista and do a search on "bloodless medicine" and
    "bloodless surgery".
    
    That's all (too much?) for now.
    
    -mark.

re .207

Ace,

Sorry I don't follow your line of reasoning, the command was:
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions
of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and
from blood." Acts 15:20 KJV. What does abstain mean, one dictionary
defines abstain has having a meaning to "refrain deliberately, 
and often with an effort of self-denial,". For us the Bible standards
are as applicable now as they were back then, hence to us this
command is still binding whatever modern technology has been introduced.
If a doctor tell someone to abstain from alcohol they wouldn't think
it was permissable to tranfuse it, would they?. 

Because guns didn't exist in Jesus' day, doesn't mean it's ok to kill
someone with a gun. The underlying princples of thou shall not kill 
remain the same. So to with blood, as individuals Jehovah's Witnesses 
carry medical cards stating no blood because we believe this command 
is still binding. Such a stance is not taken likely but we look to 
how God views blood and the sacredness that he applies to it. True
blood transfusions may extend a persons life but to us there is 
only one person's blood who can give everlasting life. So it's in
Jesus' shed blood that we exercise faith. To show faith would mean
taking God's commands seriously so as to show love (compare 1 John 
5:3) 

A study article that we looked at this week, shows that a Christian
shouldn't try to extend their life at all costs. The Scriptures looked
at were Mark 8:22-38, Matthew 16:13-28 Luke 9:18-27. Now it was about
9-10 months before Jesus' death and he is concerned about his disciples
as some are falling away (being stumbled about the need to eat of his 
flesh and blood in a symbolic sense). Jesus tells them about the
sufferings and death he will soon face in Jerusalem. Peter failing to 
realise that Jesus will receive a heavenly resurrection shortly afterwards
takes Jesus aside and says "Be kind to yourself, Lord" "You will not have 
this destiny at all" Jesus response is, as you probabally remember well is,
"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you
think, not God's thoughts, but those of men." Peter didn't want Jesus
to give up his life, but it was God's will that he gave his life as
a ransom. Jesus then calls others to him including the apostles
and explains that it will not be easy to be a follower, saying
"If anyone comes after me let him disown himself and pick up his
torture stake and follow me continually. For whoever wants to save his
soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for the sake of me and
the good news will save it." To us God's views on the sacredness of 
blood (Leviticus 17:11,12) takes precedence to us using it to sustain
temporal life.

I would like to quote from a brochure "How can blood save your life?"
which can be seen fully on the official web site, "God's people refused
to sustain their lives with blood, not because doing that was unhealthy,
but because it was unholy, not because blood was polluted, but because
it was precious."

Ace, how do you read and apply "abstain....and from blood" ?.

Phil.

The study article was chapter 59 in a book called "The greatest man who 
ever lived" under the title "Who Really Is Jesus?".

btw Something sticks in my mind that some historians believe transfusions 
were performed by the ancients through the use of reeds. But I can't be
sure where I read this. Even so if this were true it would still be
irrelevent for it's the underlying principle that should be considered
when viewing God's commands as laid out in the Bible. 

re.211

Phil, 

You wrongly anticipated my motive and responded with an articulate
and detailed explanation for a different question!!  8*)

I simply wanted to know that if you were told to abstain from
blood while living during Acts 15 what would you think it meant?
Not having some sort of context for this would have been like
telling them they should also change their oil every 3000 miles.  8*)

I think I also asked if you abstain from eating animal blood as well.
(i.e. Do you drain and bleach your burgers  8*)

Ace

Ace,

;You wrongly anticipated my motive and responded with an articulate
;and detailed explanation for a different question!!  8*)

Sorry for that, it is exactly what it meant in Genesis 9:1-7 to 
Noah and his offspring. They could eat an animal's flesh but not 
it's blood which represented it's life, this had to be poured to 
the ground. A human's life blood should not be viewed differently
in that it should not be used to sustain life. 

;I think I also asked if you abstain from eating animal blood as well.
;(i.e. Do you drain and bleach your burgers  8*)

In most instances animals are drained of blood before the flesh 
arrives at the supermarket or burger king. If a product contains
blood then this is normally on the label of the product. If this 
is the case then we abstain from eating it, such as blood sausage
which is something we avoid but there is nothing wrong in eating 
a rare steak for the blood as already been drained which was the 
requirement that was given to Noah. 

Phil.

 

    Z    Had they sired the human race in perfection,
Z    as intended, humanity would never have sunk to the point it is at,
Z    now, which requires us to take the organs of others for survival.

    Hi Mark:
    
    Glad to see you're alive and well!
    
    Just two things I would like to further comment on regarding your note.
    First is the piece above.  Your premise is based on a faulty
    supposition that since we as a race have strayed from a life on earth
    with no first death, organ transplantation is an unnatural act and
    therefore should be condemned and avoided.  May I point out to you that
    were you to be consistent in this line of thought, The WTC would also
    edict amongst it's members that the wearing of clothing would also be 
    an unnatural practice...and moreso since there was a distinction
    between Adam's eyes being opened and recognizing his nakedness.  Again
    the result of the fall of humankind.  There would also be other
    practices such as eating meats of any kind...since Adam and Eve were
    told they could eat the fruit of any tree.  
    
    If equating organ transplantation with cannibalism stands up to the
    test of scripture, then so too does the examples I've given...and much
    moreso since the two above were exact issues brought up in Genesis.  
    
    Furthermore and once again, when an organ is inserted into a body of
    another, the blood cells of the organ donor are definitely transplanted
    into the body of the recipient.  Therefore, once again, there is an
    inconsistency.  Organ donations and blood transfusions are NOT mutually
    exclusive.
    
 Z   Now, obviously
 Z   people argue with JWs about these things all the time, but JWs
 Z   never budge, because the basis of these beliefs is sure
    
    Like the year 1914, which now holds no significance to the Watchtower
    Society as of late?  And what of the many other dates that were assured
    of the followers of the WTS?  
    
    The problem I have with this practice is simply my interpretation of
    Matthew 24, expressly commanding to the church that they not be
    concerned with dates but the signs of the times.  I find the setting of
    dates as being inconsistent with Jesus words.
    
    -Jack
    

    re 732.212 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ
    
    Jumping in again ...
    
>I simply wanted to know that if you were told to abstain from
>blood while living during Acts 15 what would you think it meant?
>Not having some sort of context for this would have been like
>telling them they should also change their oil every 3000 miles.  8*)
    
    At the time, no doubt they would have thought it meant:
    
    		1) drain the blood of animals slaughtered for food
    		2) don't eat unbled meat
    		3) don't add blood into food
    		4) don't drink blood
    
    for by and large, those were the choices.  I've read a somewhat aged
    reference that the ancient Egyptians performed blood transfusions, but
    I never confirmed it with a second reference.  I've also read that some
    ancient people drank blood as a cure for epilepsy, but at the moment I
    couldn't produce a proof text that is beyond challenge for that,
    either.
    
    [I do know for certainty, however, that the medieval French
    experimented with blood transfusions, before blood groups were
    discovered, and due to the horrendous results, France actually banned
    the practice in those time.  Really, before modern times, any attempt
    to perform transfusions would probably have been fatal, due to the
    likelihood of blood being incompatible, and causing severe reactions.
    Plus, without blood screening, the transmission of disease would have
    been a sure, and also fatal, thing.]
    
    I'd probably add a fifth item, namely, to avoid using blood for just
    about anything, since man was not given permission to use it for
    anything other than sacrificial rites under the Law, and since (from
    the Christian perspective) the practice of animal sacrifices had ended,
    that pretty much ended the list of valid uses of it.

>I think I also asked if you abstain from eating animal blood as well.
>(i.e. Do you drain and bleach your burgers  8*)
    
    That's a popular question, and is obviously meant to catch us in a
    quandry for no meat is drained to the last drop.  The answer is that
    meat simply needs to be drained of blood to the extent that ancient
    godly men (from Noah's time onward) would have done, in obeidence to
    God's command not to "eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen
    9:4 RSV).
    
    The real point of the command wasn't to impose an extreme ban on
    consuming even one blood cell left over in animal flesh, but rather, to
    show respect for God's ownership of the life in all flesh (both animal
    and human).  In Gen 9:4, God symbolizes the actual "life" of the
    creature [or more literally, "soul"] by its blood.  God owns all
    "souls"; man just takes care of them.  The act of draining the blood
    from a carcass until it stopped dripping out was probably sufficient.
    In most modern lands, meat is bled to a similar degree.  Thus
    whatever blood is leftover in hamburger (or other meat) is just
    incidental, as it would have been in ancient times.
    
    After the Flood, evidently God allowed man to eat animals as a
    provision of mercy, since after stepping out of the ark, Noah and his
    family might have had difficulty immediately cultivating the ground to
    provide sufficiently for themselves.  [This contrasts with the
    instructions given to Adam and Eve in paradise, which allowed them only
    to consume any vegetation, when food grew in abundance.]  By
    restricting man from eating blood [i.e. commanding man to stop and
    drain the blood from slaughtered animals], it would also help impress
    upon man that though lesser in nature, animals were still living
    creatures, that they were "living souls" as man was, and that the life
    of all flesh was truly dependent upon (and owned by) God.
    
    In some respects, it's like a new 'forbidden fruit' -- something that
    God has claimed ownership of and told man, 'do not touch'.  Even though
    the first 'forbidden fruit' may have been just a type of fruit that
    otherwise was nourishing (and one might spin theoretical arguments that
    if a blight wiped out all trees but that one, would they then have been
    justified in eating it to stay alive?), God's claim on it asserted his
    sovereignty over man in a visible (though simple) way.  
    
    Since man *had* to eat to stay alive, choosing to limit a single food
    (or source of food) was an apppropriate symbol that man was not
    sustained by literal food alone, but by obedience to our Creator [which
    is more or less what Jesus himself said, about man 'not living by bread
    alone' (Matt 4:4; also cf. John 4:34)].  Now that animal flesh is a
    part of our diet, in similar fashion, God's claim on blood reinforces
    the notion that we truly do depend on God for life (and eternal life,
    at that), and that by our own efforts, even our best, we eventually
    perish and return to dust.
    
    Since man was never authorized to eat human flesh, and humans are of
    far greater worth than animals (cf. Matt 10:31), it stands to reason
    that human blood is also at *least* as sacred as animal blood.  Thus,
    the commands which apply to the sacredness of animal blood also apply
    to human blood [despite the modern medical reasons man has invented to 
    use blood].
    
    -mark.

Z    which is something we avoid but there is nothing wrong in eating 
Z    a rare steak for the blood as already been drained which was the 
Z    requirement that was given to Noah
    
    Phil:
    
    Listen closely...this is not meant to be condescending.  You, Phil
    Yerkess eat blood every day.   You ingest it into your body in the way
    of Hamburgers, Stew, Roasts, Chops...and many other ways.
    
    Phil, you can cook a hamburger until it is charred...the blood doesn't
    leave the meat.  Gravy is a mixture of blood and fat...mostly blood for
    red beef and mostly fat from chicken.  
    
    Thos who live by the law shall perish by the law.  The argument that
    one can eat a rare piece of steak...or a well done piece for that
    matter is a non sequitor.  You ARE ingesting the blood of an animal
    into your body.
    
    -Jack

re .216

Jack,

You sound like a Pharisee that contended plucking grain on a
sabbath was the same as harvesting and threshing.

It is obvious from God's command to Noah that the important
thing is to show respect for how God views blood. That is
it should be poured to the ground before eating the flesh, no?.

Phil.

Btw the name is Phil Burnett-Yerkess and not Phil Yerkess but
you weren't to know that.

re.217

>You sound like a Pharisee

In all fairness Phil, it may seem to some as if you also are
making a big deal out of small point as the Pharisees did. Nobody
bearing the name of christian likes to be tagged with the 
insulting label of Pharisee. FWIW.

>That is it should be poured to the ground before eating the flesh, no?.

I doubt that the blood of the animals that we eat is poured out onto
the ground. Probably it is used for other products, so in actuality
we when consume meat we are supporting indirectly and perhaps unknowingly
the disregard for the value of the blood. Maybe kosher prepared meats
is what Acts 15 had in mind?

But I know suspicion is runnning high, so let me say it doesn't matter to
me whether you eat meat with or without blood. I'm not trying to catch
you. There are basic issues at stake which matter most.

Now, where is that black pudding I brought for lunch today?  8*)

Ace

 

re.218

>You sound like a Pharisee

;In all fairness Phil, it may seem to some as if you also are
;making a big deal out of small point as the Pharisees did. Nobody
;bearing the name of christian likes to be tagged with the 
;insulting label of Pharisee. FWIW.

Ace,

Sound like and calling someone a Pharisee are two different things.
Jack was pointing out the degree I would have to observe God's
command to abstain from blood to the last blood cell. The Pharisees
burdened the people because they went further than what God's Law
required (tenth of the mint etc..). It was God who gave Noah the 
command to not eat the blood of animals, how do you think he 
observed this and to what degree?. Did he just ignore it, or if he 
endeavoured to observe this command was his attempts futile to 
please God in that as Jack says there would still be a residue of 
blood to some degree. 

;I doubt that the blood of the animals that we eat is poured out onto
;the ground. Probably it is used for other products, so in actuality
;we when consume meat we are supporting indirectly and perhaps unknowingly
;the disregard for the value of the blood. Maybe kosher prepared meats
;is what Acts 15 had in mind?

Question do you believe that all of mankind are under the covenant given
to Noah?, remembering that problem that had arisen was whether or not
Gentiles should be circumcised. By giving the command to abstain from
blood, what the governing body had in mind was the covenant given to Noah 
and his offspring which would include Gentiles and Jews alike. I can't see
that it was about kosher prepared meats as the Gentiles were not under
Jewish law.

Question, how do you observe the command to abstain from blood?.

Phil.

    You can buy blood fertilizer.  It seems like a perfectly
    good use for what otherwise be somehow wasted.  It is, indeed,
    pouring it into the ground.

>we when consume meat we are supporting indirectly and perhaps unknowingly
>the disregard for the value of the blood. Maybe kosher prepared meats

    :-)

    Butchers, slaughter house owners, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists,
    Congregationalists, Quakers, and even Unitarians, are all 
    (supposedly) grownups.  If they mishandle the blood, that's
    their business, isn't it?

    Tom

>Question, how do you observe the command to abstain from blood?.

I don't think about it. It's not important.

ace

    |Now, where is that black pudding I brought for lunch today?  8*)
    
    Ace, I remember the first time I attended a wedding in Mexico.  One of
    the dishes at the wedding feast was a soup made with pig's blood. 
    Naturally, I passed.
    
_    /|            _    /|             _    /|            _    /|
\'o.O'             \'o.O'              \'o.O'             \'o.O'
=(___)=   Aack!!!  =(___)=   Aack!!!   =(___)=   Aack!!!  =(___)=   Aack!!!
   U                  U                   U                  U

    re 732.214 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
>    Glad to see you're alive and well!
    
    Yeah, still alive and kicking.  I just haven't had time for NOTES in a
    while.
    
>    Just two things I would like to further comment on regarding your note.
>    First is the piece above.  Your premise is based on a faulty
>    supposition that since we as a race have strayed from a life on earth
>    with no first death, organ transplantation is an unnatural act and
>    therefore should be condemned and avoided.  
    
    Um, not exactly.  No offense intended, but I think you're mushing up
    issues again.
    
    I personally believe that no matter what rationale exists for organ
    transplants, given God's original intention for man to live in perfect
    (sinless) health, organ transplants are 'unnatural.'  They are
    something God never intended man to do.  If you'll pardon the pun, 
    they're quite the hack.
    
    However, should they be forbidden? The answer to this question is
    actually why the WTS changed its position.  So, you're arguing a moot
    point, for we actually agree with you that on this particular issue,
    there just isn't enough evidence in the Bible to say catagorically that
    God forbids them.  
    
    When God, through Christ, restores the world of humanity to perfection,
    you can be sure that transplants will be a thing of the past.  The One
    who can raise the dead from nothing can surely miraculously heal organs 
    that man (as a last-ditch effort) now transplants.
    
>                                                May I point out to you that
>    were you to be consistent in this line of thought, The WTC would also
>    edict amongst it's members that the wearing of clothing would also be 
>    an unnatural practice...and moreso since there was a distinction
>    between Adam's eyes being opened and recognizing his nakedness.  Again
>    the result of the fall of humankind.  
    
    In my opinion, juxatopsing this matter with that of organ transplants
    is a non-sequiter, that is, it doesn't follow, and is entirely
    unrelated.  But since you bring it up, here's what I think.
    
    While the first recorded reason for man wearing clothing was due to
    man's wrongdoing, there's no indication that clothing, in and of
    itself, is "unnatural".  Though the Garden of Eden must have been very
    pleasant, so that Adam and Eve could live in the nude, there's no
    indicational that their skin was invulnerable to harm, such that they
    would never have any need to fashion clothing for protective purposes
    (or other reasons).  Also, the Genesis account itself says that God
    made animal-skin clothing for Adam and Eve (to replace their make-shift
    fig leaf loin coverings).  
    
    There are also many places in the Bible which spell out God's view on
    clothing (and what should be worn for which occasion).  Even Jesus
    himself wore clothing (and fine, though not austentatious, clothing, at
    that).  So, even if we argue that clothing was first worn because of
    sin, the Bible itself supports the notion that it is proper for man,
    post-Eden, to wear clothing.
    
    On the other hand, whether we project forward from Eden assuming either
    sinlessness or sinfulness, there's nothing that suggests that organ
    transplants are in any way natural, let alone approved by God. 
    [However, again, we have to admit that there isn't enough evidence to
    say they are dissapproved so that they should be forbidden.]
    
>                                          There would also be other
>    practices such as eating meats of any kind...since Adam and Eve were
>    told they could eat the fruit of any tree.  
    
    Had Man continued in perfection, for all we know, we'd still only be
    eating vegetation today.  God may never have chosen to grant permission
    for us to eat animals.
    
    However, after the Flood, God explicitly granted Noah and his family
    (and implicitly, their decendants) permission to eat animals.  So it's
    pointless to argue against what God has explicitly permitted and never
    (or not yet) recinded.
    
>    If equating organ transplantation with cannibalism stands up to the
>    test of scripture, then so too does the examples I've given...and much
>    moreso since the two above were exact issues brought up in Genesis.  
    
    Again, you're arguing a moot point.  But also again, note that the
    issue of whether organ transplantation is (medically sanitized)
    cannibalism IS SEPARATE from the issue of whether Scripture forbids it.
    As we now see it, there's no Bible precident which approves it, but
    there's also none (that is clear enough) to forbid it.  Still, I don't
    think it's much of a stretch to figure that from his point of view, God
    doesn't think much of it (probably, to him, it's just another
    indication of the pitiable state Man has fallen to due to sin).
    
>    Furthermore and once again, when an organ is inserted into a body of
>    another, the blood cells of the organ donor are definitely transplanted
>    into the body of the recipient.  Therefore, once again, there is an
>    inconsistency.  Organ donations and blood transfusions are NOT mutually
>    exclusive.
    
    Now, this would tend to provide some with a reason to avoid
    transplants, if they felt that it put them at risk of violating God's
    prohibitions on blood, because blood cells from the donor might be in
    the organ.
    
    Perhaps you don't realize that the JW view on transplants ISN'T full-
    blown support for them, but rather, one of spiritual neutrality,
    meaning that it has to be left up to the individual to accept the
    consequences, both physical and spiritual, of taking a transplant.
    Transplants -- viewed as a whole -- are simply outside the scope of
    things that the Bible supplies clear principles for.  Thus each one
    will have to use their conscience, and stand before God for their
    choice.
    
    You are also correct that when organs are transplanted, it is common
    that doctors administer transfusions.  BUT, medical technology is
    making amazing progress in the area of bloodless surgery.  I do believe
    that transplants HAVE been done on JWs without blood transfusions (but
    I'd have to research specifics).
    
> Z   Now, obviously
> Z   people argue with JWs about these things all the time, but JWs
> Z   never budge, because the basis of these beliefs is sure
>    
>    Like the year 1914, which now holds no significance to the Watchtower
>    Society as of late?  And what of the many other dates that were assured
>    of the followers of the WTS?  
    
    I specifically had in mind doctrinal matters that did not involve the
    intepretation of prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled.  But, to
    address 1914, you don't have a correct understanding of our view. 
    
    1914 is still as significant as ever to JWs.  The change you're
    thinking of has to do with the meaning of the term "generation" that
    Jesus applied to those who be alive in the "last days".  
    
    The WTS used to think that this represented a period of time roughly
    equal to the average human life-span (i.e., the literal generation
    alive at the beginning of the "last days" -- which we believe began in
    1914 -- would not pass away before "the end").  But after a
    reassessment (including the benefits that hindsight supplies us all),
    it now feels that it isn't so much a reference to a period with an
    approximate length of time, but rather, a period with a specific human
    characteristic.  
    
    Jesus used applied the expression to people of his own day, calling
    them a "wicked generation."  That generation (particularly of Jews) met
    its end in 70 C.E. (or A.D.), when the Romans destroyed it and carted
    away the people.  That period of time was acutally less than the 70 or
    80 years that the Psalms say is typically granted to man.
    
    The characteristic of the "generation" alive today, throughout the
    whole world, is similarly "wicked".  It will not see its end by means
    of man's own doing (i.e., to turn to righteousness), but rather, will
    meet a divine end.  JWs still have faith that the "end is near"; we
    simply more readily admit that we haven't been given enough clues (or
    direct statements in the Bible) to say exactly how close the end is.
    
    It's true that JWs have had expectations based on dates, but they were
    expectations of things that are prophecied in the Bible.  Being wrong
    about the *when* doesn't mean we are wrong about the *what*.
    
    
>    The problem I have with this practice is simply my interpretation of
>    Matthew 24, expressly commanding to the church that they not be
>    concerned with dates but the signs of the times.  I find the setting of
>    dates as being inconsistent with Jesus words.
    
    Actually the year of Jesus' appearance as the Messiah, on earth, was
    predicted in the Bible (as part of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy). 
    However, the end to the Jewish system of worship (which Jesus himself
    also foretold) was NOT so prophetically dated.
    
    Similarly, we feel it consistent with the Bible to believe that the
    year of Jesus' _parousia_ (which we believe is invisible, for
    _parousia_ literally means "presence," not "coming") is prophetically
    given, but not the year when Jesus will bring an end to this world's
    system, and inaugurate the time of "recreation" (NWT, or "new world"
    RSV -- Matt 19:28).  Thus, while we might know the beginning of the
    end, i.e., the start of the "last days," we do not know the date of the
    final end (the end of the "last days"), which Jesus said no man would
    know.
    
    Tell me, Jack, do you believe we are in the "last days"?  (I ask
    because others I've met, of other faiths, also believe this.)
    
    -mark.

re.222

8*)  !!!

.223

>the Bible itself supports the notion that it is proper for man,
>    post-Eden, to wear clothing.

Glad you feel that way Mark.  8*)

    re 732.225 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ
    
>>the Bible itself supports the notion that it is proper for man,
>>    post-Eden, to wear clothing.
>
>Glad you feel that way Mark.  8*)
    
    I just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention.  :-)
    
    -mark.

 Z    Tell me, Jack, do you believe we are in the "last days"?  (I ask
 Z       because others I've met, of other faiths, also believe this.)
    
    Yes, I actually do...mainly because of the bringing together of the
    Jewish state.  I believe the sacrificial system will be reinstated
    sometime in the very near future.  I am actually surprised it hasn't
    been reinstated yet.  
    
    It sounds Mark like you are trying to prove a negative....i.e.
    scripture does not approve of transplants but it doesn't condemn it
    either.  It's like an argument from silence.  The clothing issue is
    not a nonsequitor because the initial intent was for man to live
    forever in the garden unclothed.  It was never in God's plan, so you
    say, for man to die.  By the way, I believe the verse, "For the day you
    eat of it, you shall die", wasn't a warning.  It was a prophecy.  I
    believe that everything that has come about has been by God's
    foreknowledge.
    
    As far as being pharisaical...I can understand what Phil is saying. 
    Keep in mind though that it is I who stands by the belief that we are
    redeemed by sheer grace, not the law.  He who lives by the law shall
    perish by the law.
    
    -Jack  

It seems to me like the words and demeanor of the Jehovah's Witnesses we have
here speaks highly of their faith.

Richard

re .227

;    As far as being pharisaical...I can understand what Phil is saying. 
;    Keep in mind though that it is I who stands by the belief that we are
;    redeemed by sheer grace, not the law.  He who lives by the law shall
;    perish by the law.

     Jack,

     It looks like you didn't take offense to my comments, of which I'm glad.
     Yes, one will only be redeemed by grace or undeserved kindess as another
     Bible translation put's it. However, Christians should recognise they
     have a yoke to carry eventhough Jesus might be with them helping them
     to carry that yoke. One of the reasons why Jesus rejects some persons
     who profess to follow him is that they are "workers of lawlessness",
     but he shows that those who receive of God's grace would be doing God's
     will as individuals (Matthew 7:21-23). Though imperfect we shouldn't 
     take lightly God's standards or show a total disregard for them, as 
     Christians are warned in the book of Jude.

     As you have now likely realised abstaining from blood is something we
     take very seriously as Bible students before taking the step of baptism
     and dedication as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's not a standard we 
     impose on others as dedication to do God's will is a personal choice.

     Phil.

re .228

 	Richard,

	Thank you for your kind words. My experience on computer networks
	has normally been one of stiff opposition and disparagement for 
	Jehovah's Witnesses. Using the Altavista search engine for keywords 
	"Jehovah" or "JW" invariably highlights this. But we have been made 
	welcome here, which has alot to say for the participants here 
	including yourself. Common ground that we all have is that we are 
	Digital employees and have been given the opportunity through Notes 
	to share our faith. What a pity it would be if we focused on what we 
	think are the negative aspects of another's faith to such an extent, 
	that we fail to share positive aspects of our own.

	Phil

	Phil... great note!

    re 732.227 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
> Z    Tell me, Jack, do you believe we are in the "last days"?  (I ask
> Z       because others I've met, of other faiths, also believe this.)
>    
>    Yes, I actually do...mainly because of the bringing together of the
>    Jewish state.  I believe the sacrificial system will be reinstated
>    sometime in the very near future.  I am actually surprised it hasn't
>    been reinstated yet.  
    
    Oh ho ... very interesting.  (As an aside, JWs *used* to believe that
    the reestablishment of the Jewish state was significant, but we don't
    any more.)  Can you be specific as to when the "last days" began (i.e.,
    was their beginning marked by a specific event, like the
    reestablishment of the Jewish state, or something else)?   Also, what
    significance is there to the reestablishment of the sacrificial system?
    Do you believe that it will be something God approves of (and,
    possibly, will have a hand in reestablishing)?  Or will this be a
    man-made effort, albeit one that (you believe) was prophesied?
    
    I have lots more "last days" questions for you, but they'll have to
    wait for another time.
    
>    It sounds Mark like you are trying to prove a negative....i.e.
>    scripture does not approve of transplants but it doesn't condemn it
>    either.  It's like an argument from silence.
    
    Well, yes.  To say the Bible is effectively silent on something is NOT
    an invalid conclusion if the Bible *really is* silent on the matter.
    Are you saying that the Bible really does address the matter of human
    organ transplants, either explicitly, or sufficiently with an aggregate
    of assorted Bible principles?
    
    At first, the WTS argued that the Bible *did* 'say something' about
    them.  But later, it concluded that it was in the wrong, and that it
    had jumped to the conclusion that the Bible did, when the Bible does,
    in fact (or in its opinion), not provide enough evidence to rule
    definitively on the matter.  Thus, at this point, it's not really
    arguing from silence, but rather being silent about the argument.
    
>                                                  The clothing issue is
>    not a nonsequitor because the initial intent was for man to live
>    forever in the garden unclothed.  
    
    Oh yes it is (a non-sequiter).
    
    God's commands to them DIDN'T include a command to remain nude at
    all times.  
    
    Genesis says that God's mandate to man was to:
    
    		"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
    		the earth and subdue it."  (Gen 1:28 RSV)
    
    Thus, they weren't confined to living in the Garden of Eden forever
    (nice a place as it must have been).  That they were to "subdue" the
    earth means that they had work to do.  They were free to use their own
    imaginations and initiative in fulling that mandate.  Personally I
    think it stands to reason that sooner or later they would have, for
    practical reasons, invented forms of clothing for protection of their
    skin (from scatches, abrashions, assorted scrapes and bruises, mosquito 
    bites, or whatever).  They may even have invented it for artistic
    adornment.  Sooner or later they would have invented construction. 
    Shoes, gloves, overalls, and hard-hats would probably have occurred to
    them eventually.  [Plus, pockets in general are pretty useful.]
    There are even forms of recreation that we recognize are best performed
    with special clothing.  Perfect man would have figured that out, too.
    
>                                      It was never in God's plan, so you
>    say, for man to die.  By the way, I believe the verse, "For the day you
>    eat of it, you shall die", wasn't a warning.  It was a prophecy.  I
>    believe that everything that has come about has been by God's
>    foreknowledge.
    
    That's a view that I'm familiar with.  But, it makes God responsible
    for sin, not man.  It means that God created man in a manner that
    doomed him to disobey.  I don't believe the Bible supports this
    notion.
    
>    As far as being pharisaical...I can understand what Phil is saying. 
>    Keep in mind though that it is I who stands by the belief that we are
>    redeemed by sheer grace, not the law.  He who lives by the law shall
>    perish by the law.
    
    No offense meant to either your or Phil, but I didn't read the
    discussion about being Pharisaical.  I think most of us recognize that
    the other person is well intended and probably trying to be reasonable
    (even if we feel the other person is in the wrong).  Thus, talking
    about who is being Pharisaical amounts to unnecessary name-calling, in
    my opinion.
    
    I'm glad to hear that you stand "by the belief that we are redeemed by
    sheer grace, not the law."  Perhaps you don't realize it, or believe
    it, but JWs stand by that too.  [The question is, what does it mean to
    be "redeemed by grace", or to have God show us this grace, since we
    probably both agree that the Bible tells us that God can and does judge
    people adversely, such that they are NOT redeemed by that grace.  If a
    person is redeemed by reason of grace, then there must also be a
    reason, intrinsic to the person, and contrary to that grace, for a
    person to perish by adverse judgment.  No?]
    
    -mark.

    re 732.228 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
    
>It seems to me like the words and demeanor of the Jehovah's Witnesses we have
>here speaks highly of their faith.
    
    Pshaw.  You'll make us blush.
    
    Thanks for the kudos ... we do try to get along (at least most of the
    time :-).
    
    -mark.

    There are 200 Israelis in training right now to be Levitical priests at
    the Temple Institute.  It's not a question of "if," it's a question of
    when.  We also know according to John the Revelator that the Antichrist
    will enter and defile the Temple (i.e., it has to exist for that to
    happen).
    
    Obviously, the 3rd Temple will be a man-made effort because their is no 
    command of the Lord in scripture for a 3rd one.  The temple in Ezekiel is 
    for the Messianic kingdom.  An obvious clue is the measurements - too 
    large to even fit in Israel.
    
    Mike

>    As far as being pharisaical...I can understand what Phil is saying. 
>    Keep in mind though that it is I who stands by the belief that we are
>    redeemed by sheer grace, not the law.  He who lives by the law shall
>    perish by the law.
    
;    No offense meant to either your or Phil, but I didn't read the
;    discussion about being Pharisaical.  I think most of us recognize that
;    the other person is well intended and probably trying to be reasonable
;    (even if we feel the other person is in the wrong).  Thus, talking
;    about who is being Pharisaical amounts to unnecessary name-calling, in
;    my opinion.

	Jack,

	I am sorry for the words I used yesterday "you sound like a Pharisee
	that contended plucking grain on a sabbath was the same as harvesting 
	and threshing." as pointed out they were totally unneccessary. You
	are nothing like a Pharisee I'm ashamed I implied it. 

	Phil.

	

    Ahhh...Phil....no problem at all!!!  Perhaps I do sound like a pharisee
    sometimes....I can understand how it can be perceived that way but I
    assure you this isn't my intent.  ;-)
    
    -Jack

Hi Mark:
    
Z    Oh ho ... very interesting.  (As an aside, JWs *used* to believe that
Z    the reestablishment of the Jewish state was significant, but we don't
Z    any more.)  Can you be specific as to when the "last days" began (i.e.,
Z    was their beginning marked by a specific event, like the
Z    reestablishment of the Jewish state, or something else)?   

I can give you absolutely no solid idea as to when the last days began.  For 
all I know, the establishment of the Jewish state may go through another 200 
year time before the period of Jacob's Trouble begins.  I am only speculating
based on the sign...the fig tree is budded.  But I wouldn't nor couldn't 
venture to determine the time.  The knowledge of this time is reserved to the 
great almighty.

Z    Also, what
Z    significance is there to the reestablishment of the sacrificial system?

Mike mentioned this in his reply.  The prophecies of Daniel will be fulfilled.
Namely, the sacrificial system will be resurrected to Antichrist.

Z    Do you believe that it will be something God approves of (and,
Z    possibly, will have a hand in reestablishing)?  Or will this be a
Z    man-made effort, albeit one that (you believe) was prophesied?
 
Man made.  It will be a sign of a reprobate world and blasphemous...and God
will pour his wrath on the world through the trumpet and bowl judgements.
   
Z    I have lots more "last days" questions for you, but they'll have to
Z    wait for another time.
 
This could be in a whole string by itself.  

I'm inclined to keep an open mind on the dispensations of the ancient prophets 
and the Book of Revelation.  In my heart though, end times prophesy must be 
in harmony with the rest of scripture...which is why I brought up the issue
of predicting dates...which I believe to be an act of disobedience.  An evil
and adulterous generation seeks a sign.
   
Z    Well, yes.  To say the Bible is effectively silent on something is NOT
Z    an invalid conclusion if the Bible *really is* silent on the matter.
 
Such as abortion.  This is something I believe God puts on the conscience of
man.  It is never mentioned in scripture but it is an act that interferes with
a moral code God has given us.  

There are many edicts given to the church for various reasons...such as women
wearing a covering, etc.  My guess is that this is not a requirement for the 
JW's...with probably good reason.  It just seems interesting to me that the
blood issue (no pun intended) has become so dogmatic whereas other issues of
the Mosaic law have not.  Are you aware that the chicken you eat tonight may
have had its neck broken or strangled?!   
    
Z    Oh yes it is (a non-sequiter).
    
Z    God's commands to them DIDN'T include a command to remain nude at
Z    all times.  
 
Correct.  Being nude was given because it was natural to their sinless persona.
It wasn't until the fall that they put on coverings to hide their shame.  This
is unnatural in light of God's intent...which was they live forever.  

Z    There are even forms of recreation that we recognize are best performed
Z    with special clothing.  Perfect man would have figured that out, too.
 
This may very well be...but again it is speculation and not really in harmony 
with the limited information we are given.  Remember that thorns and thistles 
were part of the curse.  They didn't exist in the garden.  
   
Z    That's a view that I'm familiar with.  But, it makes God responsible
Z    for sin, not man.  It means that God created man in a manner that
Z    doomed him to disobey.  I don't believe the Bible supports this
Z    notion.
 
Perhaps...perhaps not.  We are now dealving into the areas of Arminianism vs. 
the other guy!! :-)  

    
-Jack

    re 732.237 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
>I can give you absolutely no solid idea as to when the last days began.  For 
>all I know, the establishment of the Jewish state may go through another 200 
>year time before the period of Jacob's Trouble begins.  I am only speculating
>based on the sign...the fig tree is budded.  But I wouldn't nor couldn't 
>venture to determine the time.  The knowledge of this time is reserved to the 
>great almighty.
    
    Ah yes, the "fig tree is budded" sign.  Jesus said:
    
    		"So also, when you see all these
    		things, you know that he is near,
    		at the very gates."  (Mat 24:33 RSV)
    
    		"So also, when you see these things
    		taking place, you know that the 
    		kingdom of God is near." (Luke 21:31 RSV)
    
    How near is "near"?   Near within a lifetime, or a "generation"?
    
    I note too that you admit that to you the formation of modern Israel is
    a "sign".  Yet, you later write in the same note, quoting Jesus, "An
    evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign."  Assuming that you don't
    consider yourself either evil or adulterous, then you must admit that
    it must be proper for true Christians to be looking for "signs" in 
    some manner, provided that the basis for the signs is Biblical.
    
    I also admit that I've not familiar with the meaning of "Jacob's
    trouble", as you use it.
    
>Z    Also, what
>Z    significance is there to the reestablishment of the sacrificial system?
>
>Mike mentioned this in his reply.  The prophecies of Daniel will be fulfilled.
>Namely, the sacrificial system will be resurrected to Antichrist.
    
    I'm familiar with the aspect of Daniel's prophecy that says that
    sacrifices will cease, but am unaware of any part of it that says that
    they will begin again.
    
    Also, "antichrist" doesn't just apply to a single individual.
    
>Z    Do you believe that it will be something God approves of (and,
>Z    possibly, will have a hand in reestablishing)?  Or will this be a
>Z    man-made effort, albeit one that (you believe) was prophesied?
> 
>Man made.  It will be a sign of a reprobate world and blasphemous...and God
>will pour his wrath on the world through the trumpet and bowl judgements.
    
    Interesting.  Yet another "sign".  But, "An evil and adulterous
    generation seeks a sign."  Who's looking for this sign?  Surely not the
    reprobate world.  Therefore, it must be you and other Christians of
    like mind.  Again evidence that you admit that it's not wrong for
    Christians to seek the fulfillment of signs in some manner.
    
>I'm inclined to keep an open mind on the dispensations of the ancient prophets 
>and the Book of Revelation.  In my heart though, end times prophesy must be 
>in harmony with the rest of scripture...which is why I brought up the issue
>of predicting dates...which I believe to be an act of disobedience.  An evil
>and adulterous generation seeks a sign.
    
    Twice you've actually admitted that it's really not wrong for
    Christians to be looking for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the
    literal events of the world.  In this case, you simply don't attach
    dates, but yet you are fairly specific on what you expect will happen.
    
    If these things DON'T happen *as you expect them to* (i.e., they have a
    *different literal fulfillment* than what you expect), you too would be
    guilty of 'false prophecy', no?  Like it or not, this isn't all that
    much different than JWs assuming that they had correctly discerned
    dates (the whens) for certain events (the whats).  You just assert the
    *what* without the *when*.    If you end up being wrong about the
    *whats*, you won't really be much different than those who are wrong
    about the *whens*, will you?
    
    You clearly *are* 'looking for signs' -- the fulfillment of Bible
    prophesy -- with some very specific, literal expectations.  You don't
    seem to give much thought to the possibility that you *could* be wrong;
    but you clearly don't feel that you are, in any way, being
    "disobedient".  But if you end up being mistaken, would you admit to
    being "disobedient"?  Or would you feel, instead, that you had simply
    made an honest (and/or ernest) mistake, but otherwise had righteous
    intentions, and that Jesus would look upon you as a true Christian?
    
    What I'm saying is that you put an awful lot of stock in the assurity
    of your own future expectations (i.e., your interpretations), while
    using the benefit of hindsight to throw rocks at the *past
    expectations* of JWs, but yet you don't appear to admit that you
    *might* have misguided expectations too (as to how Bible prophesy is
    fulfilled).  Essentially you are right until proven wrong -- and since
    you haven't been proven wrong, you must be right.  Not unlike JW
    reasoning of the past.
    
    -mark.

    Mark:
    
    To answer your first question, Jesus said...
    
    "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass until all these
    things have been fulfilled."  I believe "this generation" is referring 
    to the generation that is here as the fig tree blossoms.  
    
    I have admitted up front that I don't claim a full grasp or assurance
    on future prophecy.  I do know the Thessalonian church made the mistake
    of acting on their impulses.  They sold off everything they had in
    anticipation of being removed from the earth.  This of course did not
    happen and they were chided by Paul for acting accordingly.
    
    There is nothing wrong with observing the signs of the times.  There is
    something wrong in saying....oh....WW2 has occurred and therefore, 
    the Lord has or is coming at such and such a time.  
    
    I do admit that my saying an evil and adulterous generation seeks a
    sign was out of context. 
    
    -Jack

    re 732.239 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
    Hi Jack,
    
>    To answer your first question, Jesus said...
>    
>    "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass until all these
>    things have been fulfilled."  I believe "this generation" is referring 
>    to the generation that is here as the fig tree blossoms.  
    
    So, if you believe that the parable in which the 'fig tree blossoms'
    applies to our day, and you believe that the end is now within "this
    generation", what does "this generation" mean to you?  Could "this
    generation" reasonably be taken to be an event that might (at this
    point in time) be well over a century, or possibly two, or even more,
    away?
    
    If 'the fig tree' is now beginning to blossom, but the end is truly
    well more than another human lifetime away, wouldn't that either take
    away from the immediacy of Jesus' explanation (that the end would truly
    be "near" according to human expectations), or mean that we're really
    NOT in the "last days" (which would then mean that Israel's becoming a
    secular state may have no real Biblical significance after all, except,
    perhaps to argue that it sets the stage for events in the distant
    future, whenever the "last days" truly are underway)?
    
    If you believe that we are in the "last days," then that makes your
    faith similar to that of JWs, for we believe that too (though, perhaps,
    for slightly different reasons, regarding the details of how we believe
    Bible prophesy is being fulfilled).
    
    
>    I have admitted up front that I don't claim a full grasp or assurance
>    on future prophecy.  I do know the Thessalonian church made the mistake
>    of acting on their impulses.  They sold off everything they had in
>    anticipation of being removed from the earth.  This of course did not
>    happen and they were chided by Paul for acting accordingly.
    
    Can you supply a reference for this?  I wasn't aware that the
    Thessalonians had "sold off everything they had", though I do know that
    they had some mistaken ideas about the soonness of the _parousia_ of
    Christ.
    
>    There is nothing wrong with observing the signs of the times.  There is
>    something wrong in saying....oh....WW2 has occurred and therefore, 
>    the Lord has or is coming at such and such a time.  
    
    How about that, something we agree on.  Do you, by any chance draw a
    connection between any of these events and the prophetically depicted
    ride of the 4 horsemen of Revelation?
    
>    I do admit that my saying an evil and adulterous generation seeks a
>    sign was out of context. 
    
    And I admit to noodling you about this (i.e., a cross between needling
    and beating you with a wet noodle), in a round-about sort of way.
    
    -mark.

Hi Mark:
    
Z    So, if you believe that the parable in which the 'fig tree blossoms'
Z    applies to our day, and you believe that the end is now within "this
Z    generation", what does "this generation" mean to you?  Could "this
Z    generation" reasonably be taken to be an event that might (at this
Z    point in time) be well over a century, or possibly two, or even more,
Z    away?
 
Mark...good point...there is an inconsistency there.  Typically, I take a 
"possibly" approach to this because I just don't know...as I mentioned a few
notes back.  I would have to default to the belief that we are indeed in the 
end times...and that our generation will see these things take place.
   
Z    If you believe that we are in the "last days," then that makes your
Z    faith similar to that of JWs, for we believe that too (though, perhaps,
Z    for slightly different reasons, regarding the details of how we believe
Z    Bible prophesy is being fulfilled).
 
On the dispensation of Revelation, we would be in much disagreement to the 
matter of the second coming.  I don't see these as very pressing issues so
much as I do the person of Jesus Christ.  As you may suspect, I am a believer 
that at the return of Christ, every eye shall behold him....as far as the 
lightening flashes from the east to the west so shall the coming of the son of
man be.  I believe the coming of the son of man will be a supernatural act 
with no mistaking as to what is going on.        
    
    
Z    Can you supply a reference for this?  I wasn't aware that the
Z    Thessalonians had "sold off everything they had", though I do know that
Z    they had some mistaken ideas about the soonness of the _parousia_ of
Z    Christ.
 
I'll have to look it up.  My understanding is that in their zeal...and their
hearts were in the right place, they didn't understand that before the second
coming there will be a great apostacy and the abomination of desolation...I
believe to be Jacob's Trouble.
    
Z    How about that, something we agree on.  Do you, by any chance draw a
Z    connection between any of these events and the prophetically depicted
Z    ride of the 4 horsemen of Revelation?
 
Actually I don't.  Without making light of anything...the World Wars, while
unprecedented as far as world involvement are pretty much on par with many
of the battles and plagues of the Old Testament.  I would venture to say the
time of the Roman Empire was much on par as a foreshadowing of a great 
apostacy.  

I believe the four horseman are an encompassment of the time of Jacob's trouble.
Jacob's trouble....

"How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of 
trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it. 
In that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, `I will break the yoke off their 
necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them. 
Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will 
raise up for them. 
`So do not fear, O Jacob my servant; do not be dismayed, O Israel,' 
declares the LORD. `I will surely save you out of a distant place, your 
descendants from the land of their exile.  Jacob will again have peace and 
security, and no one will make him afraid.:  Jeremiah 30: 7-10 

This is the time of tribulation..."For there shall be great tribulation, as the
world has not seen nor will ever see again."  Mark, this is a time when
the Spirit of God will be removed from the earth and total chaos will take 
over.  Were it not for God's lovingkindness, all flesh would be destroyed.


   
>    I do admit that my saying an evil and adulterous generation seeks a
>    sign was out of context. 
    
Z    And I admit to noodling you about this (i.e., a cross between needling
Z    and beating you with a wet noodle), in a round-about sort of way.
 
Grrrr..... :-)   
    
-Jack
        

    I heard something recently and would appreciate some clarification.

    I have this impression of the Witnesses as being a respectful and
    humble group.  However, I've heard that if one of their members
    decides that the Watchtower Society is not for them then they are
    treated as though they are dead.  All communication is cut off.

    Is this so?  And if it is, what is the reasoning?

    Thanks,
    Tom

    |    Also, "antichrist" doesn't just apply to a single individual.
    
    I disagree, Mark.  The Bible even gives us clues to his lineage.  The
    use of singular personal pronouns is a dead giveaway.
    
"Biblical Allusions to the Antichrist"

Old Testament
-------------
Adversary - Psalm 74:8-10, Isaiah 59:19, Lamentations 4:11-12, Amos 3:11
Assyrian - Isaiah 10:5,12
Belial - Nahum 1:15
Bloody & Deceitful Man - Psalm 5:6
Branch of the Terrible Ones - Isaiah 25:5 (cf. 14:19)
Chief Prince - Ezekiel 38:2
Crooked Serpent - Job 26:13, Isaiah 27:1
Cruel One - Jeremiah 30:14,23
Destroyer of the Gentiles - Jeremiah 4:7
Enemy - Psalm 55:3, Jeremiah 30:14,23
Evil Man - Psalm 140:1
Head over many countries - Psalm 110:6
Head of Northern Army - Joel 2:20
Idol Shepherd - Zechariah 11:16-17
King of Princes - Hosea 8:10
King of Babylon - Isaiah 14:11-20 (cf. 30:31-33)
Little Horn - Daniel 7:8-11,21-26; 8:9-12,23-25
Man of the Earth - Psalm 10:18
Merchant, with balances of deceit - Hosea 12:7
Mighty Man - Psalm 52:1
Nail - Isaiah 22:25
Prince that shall come - Daniel 9:26
Prince of Tyre - Ezekiel 28:2-10
Profane Wicked Prince of Israel - Ezekiel 21:25-27
Proud Man - Habakkuk 2:5
Rod of God's anger - Isaiah 10:5
Seed of the Serpent - Genesis 3:15
Son of the Morning - Isaiah 14:12
Spoiler, Destroyer - Isaiah 16:4-5
Vile Person - Daniel 11:21
Violent Man - Psalm 140:1,10-11
Wicked, Wicked One - Psalm 9:17, 10:2-4, Isaiah 11:4, Jeremiah 30:14,23
Willful King - Daniel 11:36

New Testament
-------------
Angel of the Bottomless Pit - Revelation 9:11
Antichrist, Pseudo-Christ - 1 John 2:22
False Prophet - Revelation 13
Father of the lie - John 8:44, 2 Thessalonians 2:11
Lawless One - 2 Thessalonians 2:8
Man of Sin - 2 Thessalonians 2:3
One come in his own name - John 5:43
Prince of Darkness - 1 Thessalonians 5
Son of Perdition - 2 Thessalonians 2:3
Star - Revelation 8:10, 9:1
Unclean Spirit - Matthew 12:43
Vine of the earth - Revelation 14:18
    

Revelation 19:10  
    And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do
 it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of
 Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

    re 732.243 by PHXSS1::HEISER
    
>    |    Also, "antichrist" doesn't just apply to a single individual.
>    
>    I disagree, Mark.  The Bible even gives us clues to his lineage.  The
>    use of singular personal pronouns is a dead giveaway.
    
              "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have
              heard that antichrist is coming, so now many
              antichrists have come; therefore we know that this
              is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they
              were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
              would have continued with us; but they went
              out,that it might be plain that they all are not of
              us. ... Who is the liar but he who denies Jesus is
              the Christ?  This is the antichrist, he who
              denies the Father and the Son." (1John 2:18-19,22
              RSV)
    
    This is why I believe that "antichrist" doesn't apply to just a single
    individual; John said that in his own day "many antichrists have come".
    At that time, gnosticism was rearing its head, with its esoteric, and
    fairly complex doctrines which, when taken as a whole, effectively
    denied the truth about the Father and Christ as the son.  Those who
    promoted such doctrines were "antichrists".
    
    Though the gnostic movement has died out, other forms of false
    teachings have taken its place.  Christianity, at its outset, had an
    absolute point of view that there was only "one faith" (Eph 4:5).  
    Those who split off, like those whom John was talking about, and like
    Paul had earlier warned about (Act 20:29-30), weren't just 'seeking
    truth in their own way,' but were promoting falsehoods that were
    spiritually fatal.  They were "anti-Christ," being against who Christ
    really was, what he stood for, and what he taught.
    
    Ultimately, all such ones have Satan as their invisible instigator and
    accomplice.  I haven't had time to look up all of your references, but
    have no doubt that most of them either talk about Satan, as the great
    adversary and greatest antichrist, either specifically, or
    incidentally, by way of both individual and collective agents (people
    and nations) whom he manipulates into opposing God's people.
    
    At times, God refered to his own people as a single body (the nation of
    Israel was "my servant"; 1st century Christians were "the bride" of
    Christ), so it stands to reason that the opposition forces would also,
    at times, be characterised as though they were a single entity.  (The
    "king of the north" and the "king of the south" in Daniel come to mind,
    as the singular designation of "king" represents the combined forces
    that such ones would direct.)  I certainly think the singular
    references to "antichrist" fit this pattern, when we view Christ's
    opposition as a collective, while John makes it clear that when we take
    note of opposers in terms of who they are on an individual basis, they
    can all be said to be "antichrists," plural.
    
    That's all I have time for at the moment.  I will look over your list
    of verses as time permits -- and while I know already that I disagree
    with you about the meaning of them, I don't promise to argue with you
    about them (like that's a big threat, eh?).
    
    -mark.

re .242

Tom,

;    I have this impression of the Witnesses as being a respectful and
;    humble group.  However, I've heard that if one of their members
;    decides that the Watchtower Society is not for them then they are
;    treated as though they are dead.  All communication is cut off.

;    Is this so?  And if it is, what is the reasoning?

No this not so, I have personally known someone who has drifted away
from the congregation and that brothers and sisters make a conscious effort
to talk with him whenever contact is made. After leaving the congregation
he got married and interestingly enough his wife is nowing attending
our meetings.

Phil. 

    Mark, we agree about 1 John and there being many antichrists. 
    Nimrod was one.  Antiochus Epiphanes was also one.  So was Nero.  
    So was Hitler.  However, there is a difference between "antichrist" and 
    "Antichrist."  The latter will be the most significant according to 
    Revelation.  Worse than his predecessors.

    Mike

Thanks, Phil.

What I had heard didn't really make sense.

Tom

    re 732.247 by PHXSS1::HEISER
    
>    Mark, we agree about 1 John and there being many antichrists. 
    
    It looks like we have partial agreement, but I can't quite tell whether
    you're saying that one antichrist appears at a time, or that there can
    be many antichrists in existence at one time (e.g., people who
    repudiate true Christianity and leave it, after having practiced it for
    some time), but you expect there to be one, future, "A"ntichrist who is
    the biggest, nastiest, and last one.
    
>    Nimrod was one.  Antiochus Epiphanes was also one.  So was Nero.  
>    So was Hitler.  However, there is a difference between "antichrist" and 
>    "Antichrist."  The latter will be the most significant according to 
>    Revelation.  Worse than his predecessors.
    
    I am, in fact, vaguely familiar with the belief that some have that
    such a one, a literal person, 'the Antichrist', will appear.  (This
    belief has already been the basis of a movie or two).  But JWs don't
    hold a belief in the coming of such an individual (as though a single,
    human counterpart to Satan is needed to do Satan's bidding).  However,
    we don't doubt that Satan will stir up significant opposition in the
    world to true worship so that no matter how you look at it, things will
    be quite unpleasant for a time.
    
    -mark.

    re 732.246 by RDGENG::YERKESS re .242 by THOLIN::TBAKER
    
>;    I have this impression of the Witnesses as being a respectful and
>;    humble group.  However, I've heard that if one of their members
>;    decides that the Watchtower Society is not for them then they are
>;    treated as though they are dead.  All communication is cut off.
>
>;    Is this so?  And if it is, what is the reasoning?
>
>No this not so, I have personally known someone who has drifted away
>from the congregation and that brothers and sisters make a conscious effort
>to talk with him whenever contact is made. After leaving the congregation
>he got married and interestingly enough his wife is nowing attending
>our meetings.
    
    I know ones like those Phil mentions.  Most JWs are always glad to see
    such ones come back, and usually remain on friendly terms with them
    (though usually the friendships aren't particularly close, since the
    person has taken themselves out of 'circulation').
    
    Tom, you mention what you've "heard", to which I reply that there are
    two sides to every story.  Usually it's best to talk about specifics,
    since there are many reasons why people cease being JWs, and the
    disposition of such ones (with respect to the congregation) varies.
    Blanket generalizations don't always cover every real situation.
    
    Phil mentioned that some "drift away"(Heb 2:1).  But others more
    definitely transgress moral or spiritual principles (cf 1Cor 5:9-11,13)
    to a degree which requires the congregation to follow the counsel Paul
    gave (in these verses) to "not ... associate with any one who bears the
    name of brother if he is guilty [of the listed transgressions]" (v.11
    RSV).  To an even more serious degree, some promote false teachings or
    apostacy, and thus the counsel at Titus 3:10,11 applies, to "warn a
    divisive person [a man who is factious RSV; an heretical man KJV,DBY]
    once, and a second time.  After that have nothing to do with him."
    (NIV).
    
    In Israelite times, under the Mosaic Law, the penalty for immorality
    and for apostacy was death.  Thus, by comparision, the Christian
    punishment of denial of fellowship was relatively mild.  Under the Law,
    other sins had lesser punishment (fines, compensation requirements, and
    possibly corporal punishment), but under the Christian arrangement,
    denial of fellowship was the only punishment possible, for the
    congregation wasn't granted either corporal or capital authority over
    its members.  And, of course, in the first century, no one spoke
    lightly or favorably of the choice that some made to leave.  Such
    choices were always spoken of with sorrow, for to them Christianity
    truly was a life or death matter.
    
    As Phil mentioned, some who leave (drift away) do return to being JWs. 
    Also some who are disfellowshipped (for moral offenses) also repent,
    seek, and are granted reinstatement.  So clearly such ones aren't
    treated as dead forever, otherwise there'd be no provision to welcome
    such ones back.  On the other hand, however, I've never seen a person
    who rejects JWs on doctrinal reasons ever come back.  Usually such ones
    are instrumental in making the break themselves.
    
    This is a rather 'heavy' topic, and more could be said.  But I'll stop
    now and let you (Tom) make the choice of further inquiry.
    
    
    -mark.

    re 732.244 by PHXSS1::HEISER
    
>                     -< Testimony of Christ *IS* prophecy >-
>
>Revelation 19:10  
>    And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do
> it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of
> Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
    
    Yeeees ... so, what's your point?

  ZZ      Yeeees ... so, what's your point?
    
    I thought he was pointing out that the angel immediately differentiated
    himself as a servant of God whereas Antichrist does not do this when 
    Israel makes sacrifice to him.
    
    -Jack

    It is also to point out the importance of prophecy and how critical it
    is to try and understand future events as God's Word relates them to
    you via His Holy Spirit.