This e-mail exchange started in response to an advertisement that the church that I work with had placed in the local paper offering a free Bible correspondence course. The names have been changed, but the text has not been altered. In a couple of Jim and Ellen's responses, they simply inserted their own comments; I have highlighted them with bold italics rather than using color, as was in the original.
While there are surely some things that could have been addressed in a better way, the reason I approached the study the way I did was that I felt the first thing to discuss with anyone should be how we come into a relationship with Christ. Secondly, however, while "Jehovahs Witnesses" claim to follow nothing but the Bible, it is only in as far as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society interprets it for them--so it seemed wise to note that such an organization is not found in the scriptures. Also, it has been my experience that very often a whole host of topics will come up in a study with the Witnesses; I think it is better to focus on one topic at a time, otherwise you end up on too many rabbit trails and never get anywhere. That is why there were some scriptures and topics I chose not to address at the time, hoping to get to them in later studies.
Perhaps this exchange can help someone else when they have an opportunity to study with a "Jehovahs Witness". E-mail me if you have comments or suggestions--I would be happy to hear them.
What type of course do you offer? What are some basics you teach? What do you use to teach? What religion do you teach? Can this be done strictly through email?
Jim and Ellen,
We are simply a local group of Christians that want nothing more than to worship God as he has revealed in the Bible, adding nothing to it, and taking nothing from it. The Bible study course offered is a printed course that we would send through the mail along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, so that there would be no cost to you. I understand if you are uneasy revealing your address; all I can do is assure you that we would never give it to anyone else, and no one will visit you unless you request it first. If you are still uneasy, let me know; maybe we can work something out.
I have attached a flyer (in Microsoft Word format) that will explain a little about us; let me know it your computer has a problem opening it, as well. If you have any questions at all, please don't hesitate to contact me.
May God bless you in your studies--
Kris Vilander
Before I proceed, I have a few questions that I would like to know how you would answer. First, what does the Bible say about where we go when we die? I would also like to know if your group is united in thier faith - if I ask any of you the same question, would you all answer in the same way? Does the Bible say that there is only one true religion? I do not want to give out my address at this time but am curious as to your answers.
Jim and Ellen,
I understand, and I'll do my best to answer in an honest, straightforward way. I'll start with the second question first...
You asked if we are united in faith--by that, you explained, would we all answer the same questions in the same way. Christ prayed for the unity of his followers (Jn 17:20,21), because their unity would help others believe. The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they should agree and have no divisions, but be made complete in the same mind and same judgment (1 Cor 1:10). However, in the same letter, he recognized that there were times in which differences of opinion were understandable and appropriate (1 Cor 8; also Rom 14). My point is that we are at differing levels of maturity in our walk with Christ; we are not perfect, but want with all our hearts to know the will of God and to seek it. Since we do not have a central governing body that determines doctrine (there is no Biblical authority for that), and have no creed but the Bible, there may be some points upon which we disagree; but we are united in our determination to know the truth and are willing to study the issue out.
You also asked if the Bible said that there is only one true religion. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," (Jn 14:6; see also Acts 4:12). This alone disqualifies a huge number of religions--Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc... Jesus also said, "I will build my church" (Mt 16:18; see also Eph 4:4 with Eph 1:22,23), indicating that there was only one body of believers. This goes against the idea that there are a number of bodies, all acceptable to Christ; but it doesn't mean that there is one right denomination, and we need to be a part of it. It means that we need to be a part of the church that Christ died for--and He is the one that adds us to it when we come to Him in faith and obedience, Acts 2:47. We also should look to worship God with a local group of believers, as Paul did in Acts 9:26. The way one would decide what local group to worship with is by comparing their faith and practice with scripture: do they work and worship together as scripture describes it?
Finally, you asked about what the Bible says about where we go when we die. Again, Jesus Himself provides an answer in Mt 25:31-46. After we die will come a day of judgment, where we will be rewarded for what we have done while on Earth. Heaven and Hell are both real, and both are for the same duration: eternity (v46). Christians are looking for that permanent city of Heaven (Heb 11:9,10,16). Hell is a place to be avoided at all costs, Mk 9:43-48.
I hope that I have answered your questions adequately! Again, feel free to contact me if you have any questions... May God be with you as you look for His will,
Kris Vilander
Comments are highlighted
indicating that there was only one body of believers. This goes against the idea that there are a number of bodies, all acceptable to Christ; but it doesn't mean that there is one right denomination, and we need to be a part of it. It means that we need to be a part of the church that Christ died for--and He is the one that adds us to it when we come to Him in faith and obedience, Acts 2:47 In this scripture it says that God adds those that come to him - not Jesus. Do you believe in the Trinity that God and Jesus are the same person?. We also should look to worship God with a local group of believers, as Paul did in Acts 9:26. The way one would decide what local group to worship with is by comparing their faith and practice with scripture: do they work and worship together as scripture describes it? I agree, and there are certain things that we are commanded to do in the Bible. One is to go on preaching and making disciples. But the most important is to observe the Lords Evening Meal. In Luke 22:19 Jesus commanded us to do this in memory of him. We do this to remember and honor the reason Jesus died for us as a Ransom Sacrifice. 1 Cor. 11:26 says as often as we do this we are proclaiming the death of Jesus until he arrives. Ex. 12:1-6 and Lev. 23:5 shows that the Passover was to be held once a year, not something to be held once a week or even once a month.
Finally, you asked about what the Bible says about where we go when we die. Again, Jesus Himself provides an answer in Mt 25:31-46. After we die will come a day of judgment, where we will be rewarded for what we have done while on Earth. Heaven and Hell are both real, and both are for the same duration: eternity (v46). Christians are looking for that permanent city of Heaven (Heb 11:9,10,16). Hell is a place to be avoided at all costs, Mk 9:43-48. In Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten", In Ps 146:4 It states that "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground: in that day his thoughts do perish." In Revelation 7:4; 14:1, 3 it states that there are a certain number of people going to heaven to rule with Jesus and that they alone have a heavenly hope, that number is specific and is 144 thousand. The rest of the "great crowd that no man is able to number" spoken of in Revelations refers to the rest of the people who serve God in the way that he says and that have an earthly hope. Ps 37:9, 11 ...the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace, this shows that this can not be our time now that we are on the earth because there is not real peace that God's kingdom can bring about. So this has to be talking of a time to come. God originally created Adam and Eve to fill the earth - not to die and go to heaven. When Eve sinned and Adam followed they then inherited death. God told them that if they ate from that one tree they would positively die, and they did but not at that moment. But, from that moment on we also inherited death from them and when they die they await a ressurrection. And if only 144 thousand can be in heaven what would that leave for the rest of us? Now, Hell, in some Bible translations are listed as the "grave", or "the world of the dead". The Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades refer to the common grave of mankind. Now in Acts 2:25-27 David speaking of Jesus said that Jesuus said, "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." So Jesus being a perfect man still went to what we call Hell, but was not left there by God. So it is only reasonable that Hell fits the original form of the word in Hebrew of Sheol and Greek as Hades and both meaning the grave. In Rev. 20:13, 14 It states that the sea gave up all those dead in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them and they were all judged according to their works. So that scripture also correspondes with the fact that we do not die and then ressurrected to heaven, we await the time when all those in the memorial tombs will hear Jesus voice and come out.
I hope that you do not think that I am being argumentive - I am not. I only use the Bible to find answers and this is what the Bible says. I would like to know your response.
Hi Kris,
In your tract it states that if we do not believe that the Truth has been spoken you will carefully and prayerfully consider what is said and so on. I am wondering if you are not replying to me because I read the scriptures and found something different than you were trying to teach? I hope not. If we truly want to know the Truth we will study what the Bible teaches, not mans doctrine, as I am sure you will agree. I believe that is similar to what you told me in our first conversation. If in fact we think we know the Truth and find out that what we thought fell short, should we not want to continue purifying our love of God by making sure of all things? (Philippians 1:8-11) Did you look up the scriptures I addressed and understand them in the way they were stated? I hope that you will respond back to me. Thank you for your time.
Jim and Ellen,
You had wondered why I did not reply right away; the end of my week is always very busy, and I do not typically read my e-mail on Monday (that is my day off). More than that, I wanted to give a thoughtful reply. I feel certain you would agree that we each deserve that from the other.
In response to my assertion that we need to be a part of the church that Christ died for, and that He is the one that adds us to it when we come to Him in faith and obedience (I referenced Acts 2:47), you wrote, "In this scripture it says that God adds those that come to him - not Jesus." It may be that your translation reads, "At the same time Jehovah continued to join to them daily those being saved." My point was that we do not join ourselves to the one church Christ built.
However, it does bring up something to consider; Gods personal name (Jehovah) is nowhere in that passage (you may have access to a Greek New Testament). Literally, it reads something like, "And the Lord added the [ones] being saved from day to day together." Translators will often add what they feel the context indicates, and the translators of your version felt that it was Jehovah God that did the adding--so they put His name in.
However, not only is His name not in this passage, but it is not in the Greek New Testament at all (although it has been inserted in a number of passages in the translation you are reading from). That doesnt mean that we always have to go to the context to determine who is speaking (although that is a major factor). Sometimes, for instance, a passage is quoted from the Old Testament; in it, we very often find the personal name of God.
For instance, the book of Hebrews begins by pointing out the superiority of Christ over the angels. So, beginning in Heb 1:7, it reads, "Also, with reference to the angels he says: And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire." But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever" Picking up in verse 10, still speaking of the Son, "And: You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands" (continue reading through v13). You will notice that the word Lord is from the very same word used in Acts 2:47, but is not replaced with "Jehovah." That is because the translators felt that, in context, it was not speaking of Jehovah.
However, the writer of Hebrews is quoting from Psalm 102:25,26. If you look carefully at the context of that Psalm, it is all written to Jehovah. (In fact, my edition of the NWT has a (non-inspired) heading for that chapter, "A prayer of the afflicted in case he grows feeble and pours out his concern before Jehovah himself.") To be consistent, Hebrews 1:10 should have "Jehovah" inserted instead of the word "Lord." The problem is that Jesus, then, would be linked with Jehovah. Of course, this would not be the only passage in which there may be inconsistency (we can discuss more later); in particular, dealing with the question of whether or not Jesus is divine.
You took exception with a couple of my statements, and I appreciated that you wanted to appeal to scripture in your rebuttal. In fact, you wrote, "If we truly want to know the Truth, we will study what the Bible teaches, not mans doctrine." I couldnt agree more. As you may recall, I had mentioned that we do not have a central governing body that determines doctrine; the reason was that there is no authority for a central governing body. Also, while books can be of some help (I have a number of books, myself), our authority must come only from scripture. My prayer is that we both will put these things aside, and wrestle with the scriptures themselves. Books, tracts, magazines, etc are all of human origin, and are often in error.
If you want to continue to study together, that would be great! However, we need to stick to one subject, rather than bouncing around, or trying to address a number all at once. Since you and I already agree that the Bible can be the only authority for our beliefs and practice, I would suggest that we consider how it is that a man comes back into a relationship with God--how does one become a Christian? What do you believe the scripture teaches? If you believe that another topic is of more importance, you can pick another.
I would be great if you would like to come over to my house, or I will go to yours (or some neutral location) if you prefer. It would be a pleasure to meet you both. Please feel free to contact me at any time.
May God bless each of us in our studies together,
Kris Vilander
I have been fine just real busy. Thank you for asking. Yes, I would like to continue. But, I would like to stay on the subject about what happens when we die and those with a heavenly hope and those with an earthly hope. The Bible clearly states that there will be 144,000 that will go to heaven to rule with Jesus (Rev. 14:1-3, Rev. 7:4-8). It also clearly states that the meek will inherit the earth (Ps 37:9, 11). In Ec. 9:5 it says the "dead are conscious of nothing at all", Ps. 146:4 ".. he goes back to his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish". Yes, I am using the NWT but can use any translation to show these same scriptures. The translation might be worded different but will still have the same meaning. (Afterall, if the Bible is the inspired word of God, and it is, then there can only be one meaning. Satan has purposely blinded honest hearted people searching for the Truth so that they can't find it, and one way he has done that is to convince people that there can be many meanings to the same scripture that Jehovah inspired to be written. If you tell someone something they can take it a different way than you meant it but that does not mean they got it right. There can only be one right but many wrong. The point is to reason and cross reference and take things in context to get a correct meaning.) Can you agree that these scriptures reasonably point to the fact that we do not all go to heaven, as that would be impossible given the amount of people that have lived on the earth since Adam and Eve. And I am sure you can agree that since that time there would have to have been more than 144,000 doing the will of Jehovah? As far as the rest of the people that have been on the earth and died and even the amount of people that are on the earth now and will die; would it not seem unreasonable for our God to create us to suffer on earth through hardships, sickness, and inevetibly death then turn around and make us suffer in what the modern world has deemed as "Hell"? If our God loves us, which he does, then the former belief would be very unreasonable, besides having no basis from the Bible itself. Wouldn't you agree?
Glad to hear that all is well!
It would be fine if you want to discuss a heavenly vs earthly hope.
You had noted that there is only one meaning (proper interpretation) to each passageI agree! One or both of us can be wrong, but we cant both be right. What we need to do, then, is to find the proper interpretation. Reasoning, cross-referencing scripture, and especially observing the context, help us to do that. Looking up cross-references without noting the context causes confusion and can lead to wrong conclusions.
You mentioned that 144,000 will go to heaven to rule with Jesus. Before we begin making application of scripture, we have to pay attention to the kind of book we are reading. The revelation to John is a book of signs and figures, as is seen in Rev 1:1, "he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John" That means that we must be very careful what we assume is literal, and what is figurative. For instance, you note Rev 14:1-3. The passage goes on to mention that they are all men, and all virgins. Some have said that it is certainly a literal number, contrasting this figure with "a great crowd" in Rev 7:9. If we must assume the number to be literal, then the description (all male virgins) must be literal as wellyet, I dont think they would accept that. In fact, they would look at Rev 7:4-8 and say that the number must be taken literally, but not the tribes. I would agree that the tribes are not literal because Joseph is apparently mentioned in the place of Ephraim, and Levi in the place of Dan. How, then, can we assume the number to be literal? It is far more reasonable to assume that they are to be understood figuratively. That is typical of prophetic literaturetake a look at Ezek 37:1-14. Was there a literal valley of bones that knit together?
One of the passages you mentioned was Eccl 9:4,5, in which the writer contrasted the living and the dead, saying that "a live dog is better off than a dead lion. For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all" Looking at the immediate context, we find that he is really considering life "under the sun," v6 (the phrase is throughout the book). The whole book is about what life is like if we leave God out of it: "I saw the works that were done under the sun, and, look! Everything was vanity and a striving after wind." If this is all there is, life is vain, or empty. It is not dealing with life after death. That is why we read, "And I myself returned that I might see all the acts of oppression that are being done under the sun, and, look! The tears of those being oppressed, but they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, so that they had no comforter. And I congratulated the dead who had already died rather than the living who were still alive. So better than both of them [is] the one who has not yet come to be, who has not seen the calamitous work that is being done under the sun" Eccl 4:1-3. Is the point that it is better to be dead, or even better never to have been born, than to live? It is, if this is all there isif there is only "life under the sun."
The figure used in Psa 146 is not concerned with life after death, either; it is dealing with who you put your confidence in: "Do not put your trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to the ground; In that day his thoughts do perish. Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help" Should we put our confidence in princes, or in the God of heaven? A prince is mortal, and when he dies, all his mighty plans die with him; not so with God, the immortal.
One passage that addresses the idea of life after death is found in Lk 16: the account of the rich man and Lazarus. Some would say that this is merely a parable, meant to rebuke the Pharisees, who loved money, v14. Certainly, it was a rebuke; but if it was just a parable, it is the only one in which there is an actual individual named (Lazarus). Secondly, a parable was a story by which things that really could have happened were used to present some moral thought. Those that heard them were familiar with the situations involved, because they were a part of their everyday lives. Even if this was just a parable, the circumstances that were given can still not be ignoredthey were very real, even if the characters were not.
There is a lot we can see from Lk 16:19-31; one thing is that although the rich man was conscious, he could do nothing about his predicament. Once he found that his situation was unchangeable, he thought of his family; but while he was concerned with their future, he could not contact them. While there are spiritual elements to this account, we cant simply ignore it; even a parable deserves more than that. A parable is by nature made up of situations that are a part of real lifenot like prophetic literature.
The last question you asked was essentially, how could a loving God create hell? Certainly God is the embodiment of love, 1 Jn 4:16; but he is also a God of justice, Isa 30:18. This being the case, there will be a judgment involving all of mankind "according to his works", Rom 2:6-11, and it will include "wrath and anger, tribulation and distress" as well as "everlasting life." Jesus himself, in describing the judgment, said that the duration of both the punishment and reward were the same: "everlasting," Mt 25:46. (I should note that the translation, "cutting-off," should be "punishment." We can talk more on this later, but for now, note that a form of the same word is used in Acts 4:21, "So, when they had further threatened them, they released them, since they did not find any ground on which to punish them")
God, being a God of love, offers eternal life; but love also gives the opportunity to choose. Being a God of justice as well, those who choose to disobey will suffer eternal punishment. These are not contradictory: as Paul wrote, "See, therefore, Gods kindness and severity" Rom 11:22.
While I am looking forward to further discussions about the topic youve chosen, why do you not want to talk about salvation? We both agree that we want the reward God offers (whether in Heaven or on Earth); the real question is "how do we become His child so that we can enjoy that reward?"
I won't be able to respond for the rest of the week, due to time constraints; but I will do my best to get back with you as soon as I am able.
May we please the Lord as we study together,
Your friend,
Kris
Comments are highlighted
You mentioned that 144,000 will go to heaven to rule with Jesus. Before we begin making application of scripture, we have to pay attention to the kind of book we are reading. The revelation to John is a book of signs and figures, as is seen in Rev 1:1, "he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John" That means that we must be very careful what we assume is literal, and what is figurative. For instance, you note Rev 14:1-3. The passage goes on to mention that they are all men, and all virgins, v4. It does not say that they were all men, it says they were bought from mankind. In the account about them being virgins these were those that had not defiled themselves with false religion "The Great Harlot", "Babylon The Great" she is portrayed as a woman because she prostitutes herself to the nations. For instance, who (which religion) backs most of the wars that the nations fight? Which religious leader stood behind Hitler and promoted his war? This is only one example of the Harlot and only one example is what you would need to know that that particular religion is false. And I am not saying that many others aren't but that is just one to think about. If you see 1 Co. 11:2 this is not a literal virgin either, but a chaste virgin to be presented to Christ. In this account Paul is writing to the congregation of Corinth which was in spiritual jeopardy, at this time. This was his second letter to them. He called them "superfine apostles" also described as "false prophets, decietful workers" and going on to say that this was no wonder because Satan transforms himself into a great angel of light 2Co.11:13, 14. So in the case of "virgins" it does not have to do with sex, but keeping themselves spiritually clean and acceptable to Jesus and Jehovah. Some have said that it is certainly a literal number, contrasting this figure with "a great crowd" in Rev 7:9. If we must assume the number to be literal, then the description (all male virgins) must be literal as wellyet, I dont think they would accept that. In fact, they would look at Rev 7:4-8 and say that the number must be taken literally, but not the tribes. I would agree that the tribes are not literal because Joseph is apparently mentioned in the place of Ephraim, and Levi in the place of Dan. If the tribes are not literal, how, then, can we assume the number to be literal? It is far more reasonable to assume that they are to be understood figuratively. That is typical of prophetic literaturetake a look at Ezek 37:1-14. Was there a literal valley of bones that knit together? No there was not a literal valley of bones. This account is figurative, and in this account Ezekiel is to prophesy to the nation of Isreal and they because of this will be returned to a living spiritual state, as they were in a state of spiritual death when Jehovah's spirit had left them. This has nothing to do with the number of the 144,000. There are many parables and prophecys in the Bible that are not to be taken literal and then there are many that are to be taken literal. The discernment comes from having an accurate knowledge and God's spirit to help you discern these things.
Another passage you mentioned was Eccl 9:4,5, in which the writer contrasted the living and the dead, saying that "a live dog is better off than a dead lion. For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all" Looking at the immediate context, we find that he is really considering life "under the sun," v6 (the phrase is throughout the book). Here it is putting the living and the dead in proper order so to speak. It starts out by making the observance that the dead are not conscious of anything, so reasonably the rest of the things that are done "under the sun" have nothing to do with the dead. They have nothing more to do with anything being done under the sun. The whole book is about what life is like if we leave God out of it: "I saw the works that were done under the sun, and, look! Everything was vanity and a striving after wind." If this is all there is, life is vain, or empty. Yes, and King Solomon was warning his people and all who would read it that a materialistic way of life is vain, you can't keep it after you are dead and it can very easily be lost to you or taken from you. It is not dealing with life after death. No, it is not and that is why the writer Solomon in the beginning established that fact. That the dead are conscious of nothing at all, they are not flying around in Heaven, God has enough Angels and they were created from the beginning after Jesus. That is why we read, "And I myself returned that I might see all the acts of oppression that are being done under the sun, and, look! The tears of those being oppressed, but they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, so that they had no comforter. And I congratulated the dead who had already died rather than the living who were still alive. So better than both of them [is] the one who has not yet come to be, who has not seen the calamitous work that is being done under the sun" Eccl 4:1-3. Is the point that it is better to be dead, or even better never to have been born, than to live? It is, if this is all there isif there is only "life under the sun." That would be true if that is in fact what he was saying. He was letting his people know that striving after riches was not the way of life, as I mentioned earlier. Read Ecc 2:17, 18. Here King Solomon is showing that even with everything he had toiled for (materially) he eventually came to hate life because what he gained would be given to the next man taking his place. Basically it was vainity to think that he could control how things will turn out, he states that he does not know and either does anyone else if the next man will be wise or foolish and tear down what he has built.
The figure used in Psa 146 is not concerned with life after death, either; it is dealing with who you put your confidence in: "Do not put your trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to the ground; In that day his thoughts do perish. Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help" Should we put our confidence in princes, or in the God of heaven? A prince is mortal, and when he dies, all his mighty plans die with him; not so with God, the immortal. Yes, but the issue is this - when the prince who is mortal dies "in that day his thoughts do perish". So would you tend to believe that anyone who has died and gone to heaven is a thoughtless, mindless entity? The scriptures do not contradict themselves, if they have no more thoughts and were in heaven then they still would not have any thoughts. In Acts 2:34, this is written by Luke in this chapter he is talking about when they were gathered at Pentecost when holy spirit was poured out on the apostles. In v34 he states that David did not ascend to heaven, but yet David was acceptable to Jesus and God. In Matt. 11:11 Jesus says of John the Baptist that of those born to women there has never been one greater but a person that is a lesser one in the Kingdom of Heavens is greater than he this showing that he was not raised to Heaven either. It does go on the say that those pressing for the Kingdom of Heaven will seize it. The Kingdom of Heaven includes the Earth. So going back to Ps. 37, the meek ones themselves will inherit the earth and the abundance of peace will be theirs (there is no way that this can mean our time or anytime past since peace is not now and has never been prevelant) and they will reside forever upon it (we could not reside forever upon the earth now or in the past because we have inherited death, so there has to be a time when death will be no more (Is. 25:, Rev. 21:1-4) and that is the time in which the Kingdom "a new heaven and a new earth" will come to full realization for us).
One passage that addresses the idea of life after death is found in Lk 16: the account of the rich man and Lazarus. Some would say that this is merely a parable, meant to rebuke the Pharisees, who loved money, v14. Certainly, it was a rebuke; but if it was just a parable, it is the only one in which there is an actual individual named (Lazarus). Secondly, a parable was a story by which things that really could have happened were used to present some moral thought. Those that heard them were familiar with the situations involved, because they were a part of their everyday lives. Even if this was just a parable, the circumstances that were given can still not be ignoredthey were very real, even if the characters were not. In Matt. 13:34 the scripture shows that Jesus would not speak to the crowd without using illustrations or parables. The people in that day were not very educated and this is how the Pharisees and Sadducees mislead the people. Jesus spoke in parables so that the people could understand him, not that they were stupid but they were not educated. The situations he used had to be familiar to the people or they would not have gotten the gist of it. In this parable Jesus was showing the people how large the gap was between those that God favored and those that he disapproved of (Pharisees and Sadducees for an example). Jesus warned the disciples that there would be causes for stumbling (the rich man and his material wealth whereas the beggar named Lazarus did not have his eye fixed on his material possessions because he had none) as sad as the situation might be for a beggar he was in a far better position than the rich man.
There is a lot we can see from Lk 16:19-31; one thing is that although the rich man was conscious, he could do nothing about his predicament. Once he found that his situation was unchangeable, he thought of his family; but while he was concerned with their future, he could not contact them. While there are spiritual elements to this account, we cant simply ignore it; even a parable deserves more than that. A parable is by nature made up of situations that are a part of real lifenot like prophetic literature.
The last question you asked was essentially, how could a loving God create hell? That was not my question but we can go with it. First, Hell is termed in some verses as "the grave", or "the world of the dead". In Hebrew she'ohl and in Greek hai'des refer to the common grave of mankind also the Greek word ge'en-na which was a place in the Valley of Hinnom where King Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrus Baal worship even to the extent of burning their own children in the fire. Later Jesus used this place as a symbol of eternal destruction because when something is consumed by fire it is usually completely destroyed. When something passed through the fire in Gehenna (english version) it did not come back out. Mt 5:22, 18:9, Mr.9:47, 48, Jas 3:6. Hell is not a place created by God. Nor does it exist as many teachers of false religion would have their parishioners to believe to "scare" them into doing what they say they should. Certainly God is the embodiment of love, 1 Jn 4:16; but he is also a God of justice, Isa 30:18. This being the case, there will be a judgment involving all of mankind "according to his works", Rom 2:6-11, and it will include "wrath and anger, tribulation and distress" as well as "everlasting life." Jesus himself, in describing the judgment, said that the duration of both the punishment and reward were the same: "everlasting," Mt 25:46. (I should note that the translation, "cutting-off," should be "punishment." We can talk more on this later, but for now, note that a form of the same word is used in Acts 4:21, "So, when they had further threatened them, they released them, since they did not find any ground on which to punish them")
God, being a God of love, offers eternal life; but love also gives the opportunity to choose. Being a God of justice as well, those who choose to disobey will suffer eternal punishment. These are not contradictory: as Paul wrote, "See, therefore, Gods kindness and severity" Rom 11:22. Rom 6:all, but concluding with v23 "the wages sins pays is death". In Gen 3:3 Eve tells Satan the serpent that God told them not to eat of the fruit of one particular tree and that if they did "in that day" they would certainly die. Satan decieved Eve and told her she would not die by eating the fruit. Although she did not die immediately she and Adam did then have the imminent knowledge of death and that they would die and all of those after them. V19 - from the dust you were taken and to the dust you shall return. This was not so before they disobeyed God. Through Adam and Eve we have all inherited sin and death. We can not help but sin no matter how good we are because we are imperfect and human. So it would be unreasonable to believe that sinners are punished in a fiery hell by a loving God since from birth we are born into sin whether we want to or not. That would be our loving God putting us in a situation where we had no choice and that just is not how it is. Once we have died we have paid the price for our falling short or sinning. There will be no punishment thereafter. John 5:25 - 30 in v28 "The hour is coming" it has not came but is coming, v28, 29 "when all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of hope and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of Judgement." Those who never knew or had the opportunity to know God and his word the Bible will be given a chance to serve Jehovah. If they choose not to (free will) they will be destroyed forever. Jehovah is a God of justice and that is why he will not waiver from the words in Rom. 6:23 "the wages sins pay is death" not torment for eternity. Those not doing his will, will be cut off and they will not have the hope of the promise of inheriting the earth and residing forever upon it with the abundance of peace. In Rev. 20:14, 15 it speaks of the Lake of Fire and the "second death". This second death is the final death that will be and Satan and his angels (demons) will be destroyed in this second death along with those not choosing to serve God.
While I am looking forward to further discussions about the topic you've chosen, why do you not want to talk about salvation? We both agree that we want the reward God offers (whether in Heaven or on Earth); the real question is "how do we become His child so that we can enjoy that reward?" My salvation is with Jesus and his death. He was the second Adam and was a propitiary sacrifice to cover our sins. We are not all saved just because Jesus died for us. There is no such thing as "once saved always saved" as false religion would have people to believe (Matt.24:13). That is a falsehood that Satan has put in the minds of people so that they believe that and by that not do what is required of us. We have certain requirements that we are commanded to keep. One if the memorial of Jesus death, which should be observed accurately and only once a year - not weekly as many religions seem to do. Jesus died on Nisan 14 we are commanded and should out of respect and love for that sacrifice observe it accordingly. As for your hope - I can't see where you have any. Heaven is not a place for all the "good people" that have lived on earth. That is not my opinion but what the Bible shows. I was raised a Catholic, I attended many other religions and so this belief is also not based on how I was raised but only by what the Bible says. That is the only thing that a true Christian can go by. Besides that we do have requirements to fulfill. John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." Exercising faith in him (Jesus death) denotes a physical action. Not merely just saying "I believe" and nothing more. In order to claim Jesus sacrifice as our ransom we need to DO something about it. There are signs of a true Christian given in the Bible, and it states that by this all will know you are my disciples. And unless we call upon the name of our God how can we be saved? There are many Gods but only one supreme almighty God having the right to his Soveriegnty.
I won't be able to respond for the rest of the week, due to time constraints; but I will do my best to get back with you as soon as I am able. No problem I understand.
I apologize for having taken so long to reply; I have just returned from a week's trip to San Antonio--it was exhausting, but enjoyable.
In our last exchange, we discussed the 144,000. I noted that if the number was to be taken literally, we should also note that they were male virgins as well. That is clear from v4 regardless of the translation, as well as in the original Greek; and, while you connected the "women" from the verse with "the Great Harlot," "Babylon the Great," the verse clearly indicates that they were not defiled with "women," plural. While we become more discerning at understanding scripture as we mature in Christ (1 Cor 3:1-3, the Corinthians were not able to handle solid "spiritual" food, so Paul gave them milk), we ought not to pick and choose in a passage such as this what should be literal and what should be physical. Again, it is far more reasonable to assume that the passage is to be understood figuratively, as is typical of prophetic literature--and as you yourself have interpreted all but the number.
Regarding Ecclesiastes, you wrote that Solomon was "letting his people know that striving after riches was not the way of life." Yes, but not just riches, but wisdom (1:12-18; 2:12-17), pleasure (2:1-3), possessions (2:4-11), and work (2:18-22). Life is vain if this life is all there is--yet, "Also He hath set eternity in their heart," (3:11 ASV, "time indefinite," NWT).The point I want to make is that he is not addressing the state of the dead, but rather the futility of life if life "under the sun" is all there is. We ought not to read into the passage something that was not intended by the writer--which is what we do if we claim that Eccl 9:4,5 means that the dead have ceased to exist.
I don't think I got my point across for Psa 146; what is true for Eccl 9 is true there--to get out of it a reference to the state of the dead would beyond the purpose of the writer. It is dealing with who you put your confidence in, whether in princes, or in the God of heaven. A prince is mortal, and when he dies, all his mighty plans die with him--those things he "thought" he would do (Jas 4:13-15); not so with God, the immortal.
Regarding Lk 16, you said, "The situations he used had to be familiar to the people or they would not have gotten the gist of it..." My point exactly. As I said, what made parables powerful illustrations was that the listeners were familiar with the situations involved because they were a part of their everyday lives. Even if this was just a parable, the circumstances that were given can still not be ignoredthey were very real, even if the characters were not. There is a real difference between a fable and a parable.
I'm sorry I misunderstood the last question in your letter of 3/15. You wrote, "would it not seem unreasonable for our God to create us to suffer on earth through hardships, sickness, and inevitably death then turn around and make us suffer in what the modern world has deemed as 'Hell'? If our God loves us, which he does, then the former belief would be very unreasonable, besides having no basis from the Bible itself." As I wrote, certainly God loves us, and is the epitome of love, 1 Jn 4:16; but he is also a God of justice, Isa 30:18. In a sense, to say, "Jehovah" is to define either word. So, there will be a judgment "according to works", Rom 2:6-11, and it will include "wrath and anger, tribulation and distress" as well as "everlasting life." No, it is not unreasonable to understand that there is a consequence for sin which includes punishment (Rom 11:22, kindness and severity). God offers eternal life, but we don't have to accept it. We can choose to disobey, the end of which is punishment in "hell." Did you compare the Greek in Mt 25:46 and Acts 4:21? The duration for that punishment is "everlasting," just as is the reward.
One thing we probably should note is that there is a difference between Hades and Gehenna--the KJV has unfortunately translated both as Hell. This is incorrect; only Gehenna refers to Hell--Hades corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol. This lack of a distinction in translation has caused great difficulties for many. Most modern translations (ASV (1901) and onward) recognize this difference. We can talk more about this later, if you want.
You and I agree that there is no such thing as "once saved, always saved," and that we cannot have "faith only." You mentioned Mt 25; Mt 7:21-23 shows that there will be many surprised in the last day, thinking that they were serving Christ, and yet were not. It is a sober warning; we must listen to the words of Christ, and be obedient. I suppose one question might be then, are the scriptures sufficient to guide us till that day, or must we have someone else to guide us? While some passages in particular are difficult, I would argue that the scriptures were intended to be understood and followed by individuals, and that no organization can claim to interpret it infallibly for us (as with Catholicism, or any other organization). The largest earthly organization known in the Greek scriptures was the local church.
Again, I am glad to discuss scripture with you! Sometimes, it is easier to do this face to face, rather than with e-mail. I assume you are married; perhaps you and your spouse can meet with my wife and I sometime where we can study the scriptures together. Let me know.
Thank you for your interest in spiritual things! May we both grow as we study together!
Your friend,
Kris
Dear Kris,
There are signs of the true religion and I believe if you looked at the people in your church (and I am not putting anyone down) that you would find they do not fit into those requirements. First, you must use God's name, and you trying to teach me, never used that name until I brought it up. Second, look around at your parishoners and not that anyone can be perfect but are they adhereing to Bible principles in their everday life? Do any of them smoke, gamble, or live together without being married, gay, or cheat on their taxes? Be honest. I know that there is a punishment for sin and the Bible clearly states that that punishment is Death. We are not further punished by Jehovah. Satan is the ruler of this world as Jesus said when he was tempted in the dessert and at other times, John 17:15-19 "...I am no part of this world,... ' 1 John 5:19 "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Satan controls this world that we live in. Rev. 12:12, 13 ". . . Woe for the earth for the Devil has come down to you, . . . " (read it prophetically if you choose, it still has meaning for us in our day), this is why we have tribulation in life. God does not punish us for us to love him, he wouldn't want to scare us into loving him or serving him - that would be ridiculous and wouldn't be true Love of Jehovah. The Bible tells us we will all die and that "death is the wages of sin". There is a question of Universal Soverienty, when Satan proposed to God that humans would not serve him if they had adversaties Jehovah allowed Satan to try to prove his issue. He could have destroyed Satan and the rest of the Angels that followed him but that would not have proven anything except he had the power to do so. I am sad for you that you feel the God you love chooses to test you and punish you while you are alive and then let you die and be punished again. Because if how you say that we are punished for our sins after we die then everyone would be punished and nobody would go to heaven like you say, because we all sin, no matter how good you try to be. Gehenna actually was a fire pit outside of the city walls in the Valley of Hinnom and has been used to show something destroyed eternally - not punished eternally, even secular history agrees with this. Hades and Sheol translate into English word Hell. Hades is Greek and Sheol is Hebrew. As far as an organization as you keep refering to we do not follow any human as do some religions like Catholics who follow the Pope not God. 1 Cor. 14:33, 40 " . . .let all things take place by arrangement . . .", Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:17; Acts 14:23; 16:5, 5; Gal.2:7-10. Jehovah listens to prayers of individuals but has indeed instituted an arrangement of unity in order to effeciently carry out the instruction and cooridination of our ministry. Afterall, Jehovah is the ultimate head of everything, then Jesus, and even the angels are put into an organized order of responsibility, and it goes down to us, would Jehovah organize the angels and let us to be lost? If in fact there can only be one true faith as the Bible says then how could a religion that all of its people believe different be correct, how can it be correct if they don't agree? That would be impossible. No organization, by the way, tells us what to believe or do. I choose to do what I do because I know it is the Truth and I feel sorry for people who do not have a correct understanding and believe things like their God is punishing them for things, for example maybe their child has died and someone tells them, "God needed another angel". God didn't need another angel he has miriads of angels, and I can see why so many people want nothing to do with Jehovah when they are taught things like that. And for my belief in the scriptures, I believe what I believe because I have studied it and understood it. If I did not know it was the Truth nobody would convince me otherwise. So in conclusion, I see no further reason to continue our "study". This has gotten to be a debate and I do not debate the Bible. I have a real understanding of it, and in truth, thought maybe I could help you. Obviously you will find that "funny" as you believe that you have the truth. I must commend you for your search of God but can only hope that you will come to know the True God and how he really is that he is not a God of eternal punishment, allthough he is a God of Justice, his main quality is Love. It is so simple when it says "the wages of sin is death" it does not say eternal punishment. If you punished your child for doing wrong you would not continue to do so after he paid the price that you set upon him for his disobedience. Please know though that Jehovah loves all of his people whether they are righteous or unrighteous, because really none of us are righteous except through the sacrifice of Jesus. Jehovah wants all to attain everlasting life. I myself will not be in heaven, I have no desire to be there and really never did. I always wondered what I would do there. I would much rather live in a perfect world and do the things I enjoy doing in life. This is the original purpose God created the earth for and he will return it to his original purpose because he has not changed. Anyway, I don't want to seem argumentative, as I said I do not debate the Bible, and I feel that is what we have been doing and I am very sorry for that. I hope you conitinue to study the scriptures and honestly pray to Jehovah for guidance in understanding of whether you are right or wrong and really want to know the answers. Please honestly search and implore God to let you know and by all means use his name. You don't have to be a Jehovah's Witness to use his name. God, Lord, Father they are only titles. I know your name and you know mine - if you know someone you know their name, even when you first meet someone you tell them your name. So how much more important it is to know our God and to whom we are praying to. Also, it sounds to me that you have some grudge against Jehovah's Witnesses and I intend not to make that worse or intrude any further on your feelings about us. Thank you for taking the time you took to talk with me as I know your time is valuable. I will pray for you that you continue to grow spiritually.
Dear Jim and Ellen,
Certainly there are marks of the true church that one should be aware of, before he joins himself to a local congregation. Do they work together and worship God in His way? I chose not to address your comments on the Lord's supper, because at the time, we were looking at other issues; but you would be correct, that it would be a defining issue. As far as the lives of the members of the church (I do not have parishioners; we are all equal, Mt 23:8), if one were to have ungodliness in his life and would not repent, we would have to put him out of the local church, 1 Cor 5; yet, we would not shun him, but would continue to admonish him as a brother, 2 Thess 3:14,15. There are times when this has been done at congregations I have been a member of; we haven't had the need here (I have been working with the church here for a year and a half).
As far as Sheol and Hades translating accurately to Hell, I would have to disagree; most (good) modern translations do not (typically) translate them that way because the concepts are different. Look for yourself at the English Standard Version, the New International, the American Standard (1901), the New American Standard (I normally use that for study)--even the New King James (typically!) translates them differently. The King James translators did poorly in that respect, and created a lot of confusion. I agree with your thoughts on someone suggesting that "God needed another angel" to comfort someone; I've never run into that, but it is a poor understanding of scripture, and tends to place the blame on God rather than sin.
You had mentioned signs of the true religion; the way to recognize those signs is to look to the first century church--and that is why I have mentioned organization a couple times. The only organization you find in the Christian greek scriptures would be that of the local church; and the only leaders are the elders in the church. They have no authority in any other congregation: they shepherd the church "in their care" (literally translated, "the flock of God among you"), 1 Pet 5:2. We would not be lost without some earthly organization; we have the word of God--it is the power of God to bring about salvation, not an organization, Rom 1:16 and 1 Pet 2:2,3.
I think you underestimate me; I have not found any of our dialogue funny, nor the thought that you feel you have the truth. Each one of us will have to give an account to God for our deeds at the end of time, 2 Cor 5:10,11--that means that we both want to do what is right, and persuade others. We cannot afford to choose not to listen to anyone that may differ from us with respect to the scriptures, because it just may be that we are incorrect (Apollos thought he was right, Acts 18:24-26; even Peter was not above reproach, Gal 2:11-14). I hope that you feel that way, also.
You are right to be unashamed to use the personal name of Jehovah God. It irks me that most translations leave it untranslated (not all, ASV)--that is tradition. However, while it is good to recognize that it is the name He chose to reveal to us and to be unashamed to use it is very different from requiring that it be used any time we talk about Him. If the occasion calls for it, we should use it unashamedly; but we ought not to create an occasion just so we can use it, or require that someone else do so. By the way, I really don't know your name, whether it is Jim or Ellen, so I don't even know your gender, even though you know my full name, that I am married, and that I am the husband. That has made it awkward to address you at times; I hope you don't mind.
Finally, friend, I have no grudge against the Witnesses; one of the reasons that I suggested that we speak face-to-face was that there are things that are missed via e-mail that are important to understand each other: facial expressions, tone of voice, the way something is said, etc; a lot of misunderstanding occur because you can't see or hear these things in e-mail (happens all the time in a work environment). Although I myself have not been a part of the organization, I have had many pleasant discussions with a number of members. I have found them to be sincere and devout individuals. And while I do have some serious doctrinal disagreements, I find that there are other ways in which our lives are quite similar (values and behavior).
Thank you for taking the time to exchange e-mails; I appreciate your concern for me and the general tone of your letters. I wish you would continue the discussions, but will respect your decision.
Your friend,
Kris
