I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses

[walter]

In context, yes ... taken alone, they could well be completely misunderstood.

So if we can't use "the context" in the scripture, are you suggesting we listen to [ advice or context ] not found in the Bible?

Didn't Jesus and the Apostle Paul tell us not to listen to the traditions of men who spoke different words that superseded The Original Teachings of Christ and the Bible ?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Walter –

Didn't Jesus and the Apostle Paul tell us not to listen to the traditions of men who spoke different words that superseded The Original Teachings of Christ and the Bible ?

That question highlights the whole point of the argument of context.

I have contended here over deliberate alterations to the text of the New World Translation to bring the translation in line with a man-made tradition.

I am not about to rehearse those arguments. Simply that JWs declare their traditions are true, and others are wrong.

As will every other denomination, in defence of their own position.

+++

The idea that Scripture explains itself is, also, a tradition of man – a staple of the Reformation, but never was that meant to imply the interpretation of Scripture was a matter of personal discernment.

St Paul argues for the different gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12 – but here I would suggest the reading makes it plain that the gifts are given to the one for the benefit of all, the community being one, "many members but one body" (eg 12:20).

"27And you are the Anointed’s body and partial members, 28 and God has indeed assigned persons their place in the assembly: apostles first,
prophets second, teachers third, then feats of power, then the gracious gifts of healings, aids, governances, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all feats of power? 30 Do all have graces bestowed for healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But be zealous for greater gifts of grace." (12:27-31)

I do not claim any such grace, nor dare I, but I do rest and trust in the experience, wisdom and insight of the upholders of the ancient traditions, and the wider community of scholars ... rather than rely purely on my own intellect and intuitions – I have been wrong, and I am not infallible.

"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

But I speak for me ... we must all walk the path as we see best, in faith and in the hope God will see us home.

 

[walter]

.

I use all the Bibles on biblehub.com biblegateway.com and studybible.info I do not need the New World Translation to support anything!

There are over 50 other Bibles translated into English available on the internet.

 

[walter]

.

Thank you, I respect your advice and information, may peace be with you.

 

[Thomas]

And with you.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Careful – that Book also says "And I commend joy, for man has nothing better under the sun but to eat and drink and be joyful, for this will go with him in his toil through the days of his life that God has given him under the sun." (8:15) – and I think Jesus would here, as with 9:5-6, have quite a different view on the matter.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 says the dead know nothing. Suppose you quote scripture where Jesus indicates he has "quite a different view on the matter"?

The author of Ecclesiastes has not the instruction of Jesus with regard to the afterlife. It was written som time between 450BCE, while the latest possible date is 180BCE.

Thomas:

I asked you to quote scripture where Jesus indicates that he has "quite a different view on the matter" as concerns the condition of the dead, as described at Ecclesiastes 9:5-6. You instead proceeded to give me your personal philosophy at Post 555.

I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses

2) NO ONE ACTUALLY TAKES THEIR THEOLOGY DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE, BUT INSTEAD THEY TAKE THEIR THEOLOGY FROM SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF SACRED TEXTS As all reading this thread can see, this is not merely a "Jehovah's Witness theology." It is taken directly from scripture in God's inspired...

www.interfaith.org

Obviously, you won't find Jesus' rejection of Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 within the book of Ecclesiastes, because that book was written centuries before Jesus showed up on the earthly scene. However, since all scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16 https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=2+timothy+3:16), I would suggest that you go to the Christian Greek Scriptures aka New Testament where Jesus showed up on the earthly scene and proceeded to teach his disciples what they should believe. Do that, and find the scripture where he said something that validates your claim that he did not consider Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 to be literal.

Also be sure and explain to the rest of us why Jesus said at John 5:25, 28-29 https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=John+5:25,+28-29&link=/results/E/all?sort=rel&q= that dead people would have to wait to hear his voice before they could come back to life (the resurrection). In other words, since you are casting doubt on Jesus' acceptance of Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 where it says the dead know nothing and all of their thoughts have ceased, explain to the rest of us why Jesus himself said he would have to resurrect people back to life--if they were not dead at all.



_________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 

[Alter2Ego]

I quoted Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 where it says the dead know nothing. Then I followed that up with Jesus himself saying at John 5:25 and 28-29 that the dead will be brought back to life aka resurrected when he calls their name at a future time.

And I have shown that, it seems to me, you've misinterpreted the text, which is clearly talking about the dead know nothing nor have any more a part to play in this life ...

I haven't misinterpreted anything in the text at Ecclesiastes 9:5-6.

And I have shown that, it seems to me, you've misinterpreted the text, which is clearly talking about the dead know nothing nor have any more a part to play in this life ...

That's exactly what my understanding is. We both agree on the same thing, and here we are arguing.





_________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 

[Thomas]

Thomas:
I asked you to quote scripture where Jesus indicates that he has "quite a different view on the matter" as concerns the condition of the dead, as described at Ecclesiastes 9:5-6. You instead proceeded to give me your personal philosophy at Post 555.

Not my philosophy. The correct interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 – you have failed to take the context into account.

However, since all scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16 https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=2+timothy+3:16), I would suggest that you go to the Christian Greek Scriptures aka New Testament where Jesus showed up on the earthly scene and proceeded to teach his disciples what they should believe. Do that, and find the scripture where he said something that validates your claim that he did not consider Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 to be literal.

I did. Let me explain in more detail.

You said in your post #517:
"What your friend told you is correct... Jehovah's Witnesses believe regarding the condition of the dead: "... nothing (absolutely nothing) is left of that individual's prior intelligence, emotions and cognizance...." Below is where Jehovah's Witnesses got that belief: Ecclesiastes 9:5 (&) 9:6." (emphasis mine)

I explained that if you read Ecclesiastes, and particularly that chapter, you'll see that the author is saying that the dead play no further part in this life, the text is clearly not talking about the next, or any afterlife.

Furthermore, if you read Luke 16:22-31, you have a discourse with the dead which shows evidence of intelligence, emotion and cognisance.

Also be sure and explain to the rest of us why Jesus said at John 5:25, 28-29 that dead people would have to wait to hear his voice before they could come back to life (the resurrection).

Please don't assume that everyone is making the same mistakes you are.

The fact that the dead hear and respond to Jesus in John 5:25 and 28-29 implies, I rather think, that they have intelligence, emotion and cognisance – some form of consciousness to hear and respond, some to the "resurrection of life" and some to the "resurrection of judgement".

 

[Clear]

Hi Alter2Ego

1) AD HOMINEMS/PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT HELPFUL

Clear explained: Though I understand why individuals claim that they take their theology and theories “directly” from scripture, this is not what actually happens. What happens is individuals typically read the bible and, using their personal context and bias, create personal meaning of the text that may (or may not) be shared by others.

Thus, your (and my) theologies typical come from our various subjective interpretations of text. Because our individual contexts and biases differ, our resulting interpretations will differ.
And because our interpretations differ, our theology will differ.
Alter2Ego reponded: “That's a red flag. It tells me you are not interested in being corrected by scripture.”

You are confused.

Your claim that others who disagree with you “are not interested in being corrected” is a self-serving attack that does not release you from the obligation to learn and "accept correction" youself.



2) IF ONE IS GOING TO DEBATE HISTORICAL THEOLOGY THEY NEED TO TAKE THE TIME TO READ HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

Alter2Ego said: “You responded with a wall of text at Post 547… Who do you think has time to read all of that?”

I think individuals who want to know what the text meant to its writers will have interest to read what the writers of the text said they meant by the text they wrote.

There is a great deal of data from the early Hebrews describing THEIR interpretation of the text THEY wrote. IF you will not take the time to examine the data and traditions and interpretations underlying the text, you cannot accurately cannot claim to know

Why should readers in the forum believe in your personal interpretation of the text when you admit you haven’t even read what the text meant to the people who actually wrote the text?



3) INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PERSONAL ATTACKS SERVE TO ANTAGONIZE OTHERS AND TO NOT SERVE TO SUPPORT A THEOLOGICAL THEORY

Alter2Ego: “You've chosen to believe that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. To hear you tell it:”

Instead of going directly to personal attacks (which do not educate, but personal attacks simply serve to further antagonize others against Jehovahs Witnesses and their religious theories), you could consider reading what the Hebrews said about the text they wrote and offer reasons why your interpretation is to be preferred over the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the text?

Immediate use of personal attacks is not “support” for your position, nor is it “faith”, but instead, it a form of obstinance.

Your refusal to consider how those who wrote the text, interpret the text they wrote is not an efficient way to understand their text and what they meant by what they wrote.


4) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE SOURCE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS, THIS UNDERMINES YOUR CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT THE BIBLICAL TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS

Alter2Ego misquoted the text of 2 Tim 3:16 : “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching…”

However, the actual source text doesn’t really say this, does it.

IF your theology doesn’t come from what the source text actually says, why tell yourself that your theology comes from the authentic text?

Why is your subjective interpretation of a flawed version of the text better than the early Hebrews interpretation that was based on the actual texts?


5) ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OFFERING CORRUPTED SOURCE TEXT

I agree with Thomas' pointing out that your personal interpretation of Eccl 9:10 is missing some historical context that is contained in the hebrew (and contained in the hebrew historical "wall of text" you refused to read).

Alter2Ego offers another corrupted interpretation of text:

"Work hard at whatever you do, because there will be no action, no thought, no knowledge, no wisdom in the world of the dead—and that is where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:10 -- Good News Bible)

This is another good example of inaccurate text. Notice AGAIN, the underlying source text does not say what your quote says.

IF You are ignorant of what the actual source text says, yet you are willing to offer corrupted text, why should any reader trust your inaccurate quotes or your interpretations OF inaccurate quotes?



6) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HISTORICAL "SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT", YOU SHOULD NOT TRY TO ARGUE "SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT"
Alter2Ego said : “Without accepting the Bible as the authority and accepting what it says--based upon scriptural context…”

Wait. “Scriptural context”?

In your initial response, you complained that the historical context I offered was a “wall of text” and intimated you had “no time” to read such historical context.

How can you claim you read in context when you refuse to learn the actual historical context?

It’s illogical to refuse consideration of historical context, yet claim you use the very contextual principles you refuse to learn.

Why is your interpretation with it’s lack of historical context to be preferred to interpretation of the Hebrews who wrote the text?



7) IT IS NOT SCRIPTURE THAT IS SUBJECTIVE, BUT RATHER THE SUBJECT READING SCRIPTURE IS, BY DEFINITION "SUBJECTIVE"

Alter2Ego said : -Christians with different beliefs will argue for ad nauseam / in circles, claiming--as you are now claiming--that scripture is subjective

Again, you conclusion is illogical.
Scripture text is not subject.
It is your interpretation itself that is subjective.
YOU are the “subject” that is interpreting the text. THIS makes your interpretation of text “subjective” by definition.

Why is your interpretation to be preferred to the Hebrews who actually wrote the text?



8) PLEASE DO NOT FORGET I HAVE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY PRIOR QUESTIONS FROM POST 532

CLEAR ASKED:

1) Regarding the resurrected body in Jehovahs Witness Theology

Since, upon the death of a person, absolutely nothing remains of the dead person, I assume that, in Jehovahs Witness theology, resurrection of the person who had been annihilated consists of God creating a different body (i.e. one capable of a heavenly existence).
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?



2) Regarding the resurrected personality, intelligence and emotions placed into a resurrected body

Since the original personality, intelligence and emotions no longer exist, I assume that, in Jehovahs witness theology, that God places another set of personality, intelligence and emotions into the resurrected body.
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?


Again, Alter2Ego, thank you so much if you can provide a simple and clear answer and for your insightful posts.

 

[Clear]

Clear said: “The "annihilation" of the mortal body that I was referring to is the dissolution of the body as it disintegrates”
TheLightWithin replied: “I see. I confused the use of the word "annihilation" with the annihilationist doctrine of soteriology.”

Please be at peace TheLightWithin. I probably was not clear enough.