Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[tam]

But I am longing to be with Him in person, to meet Him, for Him to return, to gather us up, etc. This is our hope, our faith. Who hopes for what he already has?

That is fine, I have no comment to make about your desires, that is your personal private business and yours alone. I do not share that hope or that desire. Do you feel at liberty to judge me for that? My hope is to live on paradise on earth; that is my calling, do you mind?


JW

Did Paul not desire the same thing that I said I desire? So that it is not about me (or you)?


In any case, I do not judge you or anyone, for anything.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

But I am longing to be with Him in person, to meet Him, for Him to return, to gather us up, etc. This is our hope, our faith. Who hopes for what he already has?

That is fine, I have no comment to make about your desires, that is your personal private business and yours alone. I do not share that hope or that desire. Do you feel at liberty to judge me for that? My hope is to live on paradise on earth; that is my calling, do you mind?


JW

Did Paul not desire the same thing that I said I desire? So that it is not about me (or you)?

I did not say that was not PAUL'S desire, I said that was not * MY * desire. I repeat I will not presume to make a comment about your desires, (they are not my business) you say you share the same desire as Paul... congratulations. I don't.


JW

[tam]

But I am longing to be with Him in person, to meet Him, for Him to return, to gather us up, etc. This is our hope, our faith. Who hopes for what he already has?

That is fine, I have no comment to make about your desires, that is your personal private business and yours alone. I do not share that hope or that desire. Do you feel at liberty to judge me for that? My hope is to live on paradise on earth; that is my calling, do you mind?


JW

Did Paul not desire the same thing that I said I desire? So that it is not about me (or you)?

I did not say that was not PAUL'S desire, I said that was not * MY * desire. I repeat I will not presume to make a comment about your desires, (they are not my business).

The point was not to comment on desires (which are the individual's).

The point being made was that Paul's words contradict the idea that this 'nearness' is the same thing that we can have right now.


So that you are suggesting that Paradise earth is more of the same kind of nearness as we have now.

But Paul (and others) were looking forward to more than the same thing; they were looking forward to being with Christ LITERALLY.

So if paradise earth does not mean that... then no, not everyone truly desires this, because at least some of us desire to be with our Lord. To meet Him. To be with Him in person. As Paul desired; and the apostles, etc.


But each time that I state this, you try to convince me that it is the same 'nearness', regardless.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

My Lord reminds me of His words here:

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."Matt 10:37

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26


He also said:

If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23

The one who loves ME will keep MY commands. John 14:15, and also 14:21

Im not sure what these passages have to do with Jesus establishing a visible, authoritative Church made up of sinful human beings?

Yes! Jesus comes first " always! And IF Jesus comes first we will do as He commands and He told us to listen to His Church!

The WTS teaches the vast majority of her people NOT to eat or drink the body and blood of Christ. Even though Christ said TO eat and TO drink; and that unless one does this one has no life in oneself. Her children listen to her teaching, but not to His teaching.

Yes, we are in agreement. A clear command/desire of our Lord that we both agree the JWs get wrong.

I also think Jesus established the priesthood and gave priests the power to forgive sins and believe any church that does not offer this beautiful sacrament is in error of not following Christs command. Does your church offer confession and do your clergy have the power from Jesus Christ to forgive sins? If not, I would say you arent listening to His teachings.

From the RCC, one example would be the inquisition: everything about that is against the commands of Christ to love even one's enemies, to turn the other cheek, etc. Where did Christ ever command (in word OR deed) that one should order or take part in such a thing. Yet those in 'her' obeyed the RCC, and not Christ.

First, no account of misguided zeal or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church. Those that were part of such cruelty were wrong to do so and not to make excuses but it is very important to keep historical context in mind. You do realize it was the medieval age, right? There was no separation of church and state. Therefore heresy was seen as an evil that threatened a community. Everyone during this medieval period were interested in the means to preserve unity of faith and culture. So those who opposed the status quo were not looked upon lightly.

Its important to understand too that at that time in history it was typical to kill or torture anyone that was perceived as causing trouble and it was also a time when guilt was presumed. Believe it or not the Inquisition was often seeing that the accused got a trial and opportunity to repent " of course that never seems to get mentioned. Many people know nothing about what inquisition courts were or what purpose they served. Inquisitions typically involved a judicial process that aimed at confession and conversion. Again, I am not making excuses " the horrible barbaric acts that occurred during the Inquisition were wrong, but funny to see the Catholics that were involved in such somehow even worse than everyone else who also were involved in such horrific deeds during the Medieval age.

Do you truly believe that Christ would appoint over HIS BODY (HIS SHEEP) anyone who would teach His sheep to obey them over Him?

Yes. Because we can trust Him (Jesus). We have His word that He gave us His Church and He will remain with His Church. Now, that doesnt mean if you think or see someone within the Church doing something you know is wrong that you should obey them " of course not! It means however you should have confidence in Christs word and not leave or abandon His Church just because Father Fred is a horrible person. Do as they say and not as they do. Those were the words we are told in how to deal with corruption and hypocrites within the Church. Again, why not follow that command?

Christ says, "The One who keeps MY commands is the One who loves ME."

Right! And what does He command? Listen to His Church!

Do you hear what you said?

HE will guide us (His Church) into all truth. HE will guide us. His Church (made of people) are to listen to Him and be guided by Him.

Unless a person does not consider themselves to be part of His church?

Because if one is (part of) His Church, then HE is the one who guides that one into all truth.

He has chosen to guide us in all truth via His Church " that is the point! Does Jesus audibly speak to you? Because He doesnt to me and God knows us being human and all we need that audible voice. The Church is Gods voice on earth. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He established His Church so that we have an audible voice in this crazy world. Thanks be to God! We have a place to go when we realize Scripture alone can be confusing and two sincere people can come to two different understandings about what it means. The only thing that makes sense is an earthly, visible, authoritative, and apostolic Church! NOYHING ELSE MAKES SENSE!

One more time:

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.

"Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

^ pretty heavy words there declared by Jesus.

Christ builds His church upon Himself (the Rock, the cornerstone, the foundation of our faith), using the FAITH that Peter showed (believing when God revealed to him that his Lord was the Messiah).

Im sorry but this is simply false. Ill provide a link to explain it better so as not to bring up a whole new topic.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-the-rock

But Peter was not the first among the apostles to show this faith; nor was he appointed first among the apostles. There is no first among the apostles.

Again, Jesus picked Peter. Please check out the links. Peter was hand chosen by Christ, given authority, placed in charge and made leader. This is evident in Scripture.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy

Quote:
Scripture tells us the Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of Truth.


I agree with you that scripture is not the 'pillar and foundation of Truth'. But is not Christ the Truth?

Well, Scripture says the Church is soooooooooo . . . .

I never said it was a teaching of the RCC. I merely stated that the RCC was not a beacon of light to such ones (or any of the others in that list, and some of those things WERE commanded by the RCC), in contrast to your words that the RCC has always been a beacon of light.

Yet the Catholic Church was and is " believe it or not even to those who were abused. The corrupt sinners within the Church werent, but the Church was always there teaching the truth and praying for the hurt and oppressed. I have a friend who was sexually assaulted by a priest as a little girl. I asked her how did it not shake her faith? And she said, even as a child she was able to make a distinction between the bad priest and the Church. She said she knew if she left the Church she would be leaving Christ too and she just couldnt do it. She was able to recognize what many cant " she trusted Christ in His promise to remain with His Church.

Thank you for your wish of peace, and as always, peace to you and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,

Right back at ya tammy!

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to tam]

My Lord reminds me of His words here:

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."Matt 10:37

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26


He also said:

If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23

The one who loves ME will keep MY commands. John 14:15, and also 14:21

Im not sure what these passages have to do with Jesus establishing a visible, authoritative Church made up of sinful human beings?

They were in response to your suggestions about the 'mother' analogy.

Yes! Jesus comes first " always!

He certainly should...

And IF Jesus comes first we will do as He commands and He told us to listen to His Church!

And if listening to the one who claims to be His Church means disobeying His other commands? You don't see a conflict there? If what you suggest is true, we would not be able to obey Christ without also disobeying Him.

The WTS teaches the vast majority of her people NOT to eat or drink the body and blood of Christ. Even though Christ said TO eat and TO drink; and that unless one does this one has no life in oneself. Her children listen to her teaching, but not to His teaching.

Yes, we are in agreement. A clear command/desire of our Lord that we both agree the JWs get wrong.

Because they are listening to their 'church', even if that means listening to 'her' over Christ.

Which is what you suggested that people should do. The only difference between you on this matter is that you believe your religion is that church and jws believe their religion is that church.

I also think Jesus established the priesthood and gave priests the power to forgive sins and believe any church that does not offer this beautiful sacrament is in error of not following Christs command. Does your church offer confession and do your clergy have the power from Jesus Christ to forgive sins? If not, I would say you arent listening to His teachings.

My Church is the Body of Christ, of which I am part. There are no clergy or laity. Christ is our head, our teacher; our Leader; the cornerstone upon whom we build our faith; our Master and Lord.

We do not have to come to someone else so that our sins are forgiven (nor does anyone else need to do so - since one can repent and ask Christ directly to forgive them), but yes, He does give those who belong to Him the power to do forgive sins.

From the RCC, one example would be the inquisition: everything about that is against the commands of Christ to love even one's enemies, to turn the other cheek, etc. Where did Christ ever command (in word OR deed) that one should order or take part in such a thing. Yet those in 'her' obeyed the RCC, and not Christ.

First, no account of misguided zeal or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church. Those that were part of such cruelty were wrong to do so and not to make excuses but it is very important to keep historical context in mind. You do realize it was the medieval age, right? There was no separation of church and state.

Why would this matter? I realize you have a 'therefore' following this statement, but:

If they could obey Christ two thousand years ago; why could they not obey Him during the middle ages? Did Christ say, 'don't worry about my commands in the middle ages', or 'you only have to obey my commands when it is easy to do so'?

Therefore heresy was seen as an evil that threatened a community. Everyone during this medieval period were interested in the means to preserve unity of faith and culture. So those who opposed the status quo were not looked upon lightly.

What difference does it make what people were interested in? Did Christ state that it is okay to disobey Him if people opposed the status quo? What is the point of Him saying that we must love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who persecute us... if we get to discard that when we have enemies, in this case enemies who are threatening the status quo?

Its important to understand too that at that time in history it was typical to kill or torture anyone that was perceived as causing trouble and it was also a time when guilt was presumed.

And? Again, why does that matter? Just because others were doing it does not mean that those who belong to Christ, who listen to Him, should be doing it or commanding it. Even if guilt was presumed (or even if guilt of something was proven), when did Christ say 'kill the guilty'?

Did this "church" no longer remember the words of the Lord they claimed to follow; or did they not care? Or did they not know (Him)?

Believe it or not the Inquisition was often seeing that the accused got a trial and opportunity to repent " of course that never seems to get mentioned. Many people know nothing about what inquisition courts were or what purpose they served. Inquisitions typically involved a judicial process that aimed at confession and conversion. Again, I am not making excuses " the horrible barbaric acts that occurred during the Inquisition were wrong, but funny to see the Catholics that were involved in such somehow even worse than everyone else who also were involved in such horrific deeds during the Medieval age.

Oh, I never said and do not believe that they were worse than anyone else.

But should the "church" not have done and taught and believed what was TRUE? IF indeed they truly were representative of Christ, if they truly were the voice of God on earth?

What does it say that they were no worse than anyone else?

Do you truly believe that Christ would appoint over HIS BODY (HIS SHEEP) anyone who would teach His sheep to obey them over Him?

Yes.

I... guess I am not surprised at the response. Indeed, it is the only response possible if one is to maintain the belief that the RCC has the approval of Christ no matter what; no matter what she does or says; no matter how far she strays from Him, no matter how many lies she teaches, no matter how much she disobeys Him and teaches others to follow her in her disobedience. No matter how much reproach (rather than glory) she brings upon Christ and upon His Father.

It is very smart of the RCC (and the WTS) to convince people that THEY are God's channel on earth. That there is no where else for people to go except them. Because then they can do and say whatever they want, and many (not all) people will remain in them no matter what. (this means more money and power for them)

But some do hear His call to come out of 'her' and to come to Him.

Because we can trust Him (Jesus). We have His word that He gave us His Church and He will remain with His Church.

He will and does.

But that does not make the RCC that church.

Now, that doesnt mean if you think or see someone within the Church doing something you know is wrong that you should obey them " of course not! It means however you should have confidence in Christs word and not leave or abandon His Church just because Father Fred is a horrible person. Do as they say and not as they do. Those were the words we are told in how to deal with corruption and hypocrites within the Church.

No, those were the words that He told the Jews (who were under the law still) with regard to the Pharisees and teachers of the law. But that system of worship was torn down with the temple; and no one was then to 'do as they say and not as they do'.

We are to do as CHRIST says. And to do as Christ does.

Besides, are you suggesting that the RCC did not say to her members that the Inquisition or any forced conversion of adults or children - or any war that they were told to fight... was holy and being done in the name of Christ and God?

Christ says, "The One who keeps MY commands is the One who loves ME."

Right! And what does He command? Listen to His Church!

Why do you keep saying this?

Simply because He said to His apostles (plural) that the one who hears you, hears me; the one who receives you, receives me?

This is true of the apostles and of anyone who belongs to Him and speaks as He tells them to speak.

But this does not a) make the RCC those ones; nor b) mean that we who belong to Him are to teach others to listen to us. We are to be witnesses to CHRIST (not ourselves), but tell others to listen to and obey Him.

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Did He not teach His apostles to listen to HIM?

Do you hear what you said?

HE will guide us (His Church) into all truth. HE will guide us. His Church (made of people) are to listen to Him and be guided by Him.

Unless a person does not consider themselves to be part of His church?

Because if one is (part of) His Church, then HE is the one who guides that one into all truth.

He has chosen to guide us in all truth via His Church " that is the point!

That is your point, I agree. That is the teaching of the RCC. (and the WTS teaches something similar; as do other sects)

But that is not what Christ taught. He did not set up a mediator between men and Him.

Does Jesus audibly speak to you?

Christ speaks to everyone. Not everyone hears Him or listens to Him. Unfortunately, because of the teaching of men, many do not recognize His voice even if they did hear Him, because man has taught them that Christ does not speak.

But He said that His sheep listen to His voice. We have multiple examples in what is written of Him speaking and the apostles (and others as well) listening to His voice.

Because He doesnt to me and God knows us being human and all we need that audible voice. The Church is Gods voice on earth.

Christ is God's voice. He is the Word of God. He spoke to more than just the apostles (as evidenced in what is written) He said His sheep would hear His voice.

His voice is quiet. We have to listen.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He established His Church so that we have an audible voice in this crazy world.

An audible voice that teaches people to disobey Christ? An audible voice teaches things that are in conflict with Him?

What good is that voice?

I will stick with listening to Christ. He has never led me wrong; and He has never taught me to disobey Him.

We have a place to go when we realize Scripture alone can be confusing and two sincere people can come to two different understandings about what it means.

"Lord, to WHOM else would we go? You have the words of eternal life."

But Peter was not the first among the apostles to show this faith; nor was he appointed first among the apostles. There is no first among the apostles.

Again, Jesus picked Peter. Please check out the links. Peter was hand chosen by Christ, given authority, placed in charge and made leader. This is evident in Scripture.

A - Christ chose all twelve apostles. He set none of them over the other.

B - Christ said that the apostles had ONE leader: Christ; and that they were all brothers.

Why would He contradict His own words by making one of them leader over the others?

(I will check out your links when I have time, and if there is something in them to respond to, I may start a new thread on it)

Quote:
Scripture tells us the Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of Truth.


I agree with you that scripture is not the 'pillar and foundation of Truth'. But is not Christ the Truth?

Well, Scripture says the Church is soooooooooo . . . .

I believe I asked if Christ was the Truth. I believe also that you said 'scripture is not the pillar and foundation of Truth' ; )

I never said it was a teaching of the RCC. I merely stated that the RCC was not a beacon of light to such ones (or any of the others in that list, and some of those things WERE commanded by the RCC), in contrast to your words that the RCC has always been a beacon of light.

Yet the Catholic Church was and is " believe it or not even to those who were abused.

To some of those who were abused and remained in the RCC (or another religion). Yes, I know.

Of course that might be because they have been taught that there is nowhere else to go to if one wants to belong to God - and they do not wish to leave God for any reason.

The corrupt sinners within the Church werent, but the Church was always there teaching the truth and praying for the hurt and oppressed. I have a friend who was sexually assaulted by a priest as a little girl. I asked her how did it not shake her faith? And she said, even as a child she was able to make a distinction between the bad priest and the Church. She said she knew if she left the Church she would be leaving Christ too and she just couldnt do it.

Ahh! See?

I am sorry for your dear friend. I am sorry both for her abuse AND for the turmoil that she must have gone through.



Peace again to you, RR, and to your dear household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

The point being made was that Paul's words contradict the idea that this 'nearness' is the same thing that we can have right now. [...] But each time that I state this, you try to convince me that it is the same 'nearness', regardless. ...

That is untrue, I will thank you not to attribute to me points that I have not made. I hope I am making myself clear. If you look back over my posts you will see that I have indeed indicated that in Paradise, when the new Jersualem comes down from heaven, and God's tent is with mankind, when sin has been removed and mankind is once again enjoys the relationship with humans as he did with the first man Adam, that we will enjoy a greater intimacy with God and Jesus. If you note what openend this discussion, I even pointed out that I personally see no reason why we might not even hear the voice of God or Jesus as Adam did in the paradise of Eden or converse with him as a Father and a child does. So I respectfully ask you to kindly not put words in my mouth; thank you in advance.

What I also pointed out however is that geography, physical location is no impedement on this intimacy, that the holy spirit can reach any part of the universe and that, to support that we have the intimate relationship Jesus had with his father, while he (Jesus) was in the physical realm.

If you think this miraculous ability to be "with" someone in the fullest sense while physically apart is beyond God's ability, feel free to state that clearly.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

But Paul [...] were looking forward to being with Christ LITERALLY.

If you look carefully over what I wrote, you will see that at no time did I even imply this was not the case.

So if paradise earth does not mean that... then no, not everyone truly desires this ...

Was there a part of "I don't desire this" you are having understanding? I do believe I am "someone", therefore obviously not everyone does desire this. There are millions of Christians like myself (over 8 million to be exact), so I am not alone.

some of us desire to be with our Lord. To meet Him. To be with Him in person. As Paul desired; and the apostles, etc.

I have acknowledge that you say you have this desire. What more do you want me to say? Yes, you do, yes Paul and the Apostles did. No I don't.


Anything else?

[tam]

[Replying to post 667 by JehovahsWitness]

So if paradise earth does not mean that... then no, not everyone truly desires this ... tam

I have acknowledge that you say you have this desire. What more do you want me to say?... jw

Nothing. It is merely my response to the question posed by the OP: doesn't everyone truly desire this?


Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 667 by JehovahsWitness]

So if paradise earth does not mean that... then no, not everyone truly desires this ... tam

I have acknowledge that you say you have this desire. What more do you want me to say?... jw

Nothing. It is merely my response to the question posed by the OP: doesn't everyone truly desire this?

Well actually the OP question was:

" Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?"

I suppose then your answer would be: "me"

[tam]

The point being made was that Paul's words contradict the idea that this 'nearness' is the same thing that we can have right now. [...] But each time that I state this, you try to convince me that it is the same 'nearness', regardless. ...

That is untrue, I will thank you not to attribute to me points that I have not made.

I am not trying to. I hope you will forgive my confusion, but when I asked if that nearness would be the same as what we experienced now, you said you believed it would be.

I hope I am making myself clear. If you look back over my posts you will see that I have indeed indicated that in Paradise, when the new Jersualem comes down from heaven, and God's tent is with mankind, when sin has been removed and mankind is once again enjoys the relationship with humans as he did with the first man Adam that we will enjoy a greater intimacy with God and Jesus.

Yes, you also said that.

But is it not also true that the official jw teaching is that only those with the heavenly hope will be with Christ (literally) in heaven. That those with the earthly hope will live forever on the earth... and since Christ remains in heaven and they remain on the earth, then they cannot literally be with Him?

If you note what openend this discussion, I pointed out that I personally see no reason why we might not even hear the voice of God or Jesus as Adam did or converse with him as a Father and a child does.

You also said this, yes, which covered one part of my objection to the jw version of paradise earth. Not that I have any problem with Paradise on earth; after all, the Holy City comes down out of heaven and the Bride reigns with Christ upon the earth. My objection is to the idea of not being reunited with Christ, in person, and being with Him wherever He goes.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy