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

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1534 by PinSeeker]


I am holding checkpoint by his own standards. If that's the basis upon which he wants to exchange I am willing to indulge, as long as his standards aren't double . I don't however believe anybody else (including myself), is scripturally obliged to only use biblical expressions in bible discussion, indeed I think that is unreasonable . He wants me to explain scripture without using any words or expressions that are not directly taken from the bible, fine, my response to that is "After you!".

You however have not requested such a thing, so I will not be asking you to demonstrate how it can be done. Use own terms and expressions as you want, I do all the time.

JW

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1530 by JehovahsWitness]


Checkpoint wrote:

What has made this so debatable is the JW assertion that this ultimate harvest began in 1914..

Where did anyone say the word "ultimate" indeed where did you read any witness say "the ultimate harvest began in 1914"? You say you are "uncomfortable with non-biblical terms" yet you seem comfortable with the ideas of "immediate vs ultimate" harvests, where are the terms "immediate harvest" and "ultimate harvest" in scripture?

Most Jehovahs Witnesses are very careful about how they word things, kindly refrain from attributing words that were not said by us to us.

Hold on a minute or two, JW.

What you have quoted is a paragraph I wrote to Pinseeker. In it I used two phrases or terms he had coined, that I think are apt and accurate.

I did not attribute them to you or him or anyone else. I did not suggest any JW had said any particular words or phrases, or used those terms.

[Checkpoint]

It will not do so before his visible return.

Matthew 25:31-45; Matthew 13:47-50
Revelation 14:14-20.

No none of those scriptures say that the harvest season/time starts "after his visible return". Indeed I don't think the words "after visible return" can be found anywhere in the bible.

Please show me the exact words you said in the bible.

[...]Those are your terms, not those of scripture... I am uncomfortable with any term that others use that is non-biblical.

JW

That last statement of mine you quoted was not intended to be some kind of rule you or I am obliged to, or expected to, keep.

The term, "his visible return" is not found in scripture, but its meaning surely is.

It is not until he does that, return visibly, that the end of the age harvest of mankind will take place.

[JehovahsWitness]

I did not attribute them to you or him or anyone else. I did not suggest any JW had said any particular words or phrases, or used those terms.

Okay that's fine.

Both Onewithim and myself have been clear about what we believe. Namely that we are currently living in the harvest season /time described in Matthew 13 (I have yet to see any biblical evidence why that cannot be true).

• MATTHEW 13:30, 39-43

H
A (#1 First collect /identification of the "weeds" (imitation Christians) v41
R
V (#2 then, the gathering the wheat (true Christians) into the "storehouses" (the organised
E Christian congregation v30)
S
T

• And then...

the burning of the "weeds" (v42) (destruction of imitation christianity) and the shining in the kingdom (return of Christ with his 144,000 brothers in kingdom glory v43)

You are free to offer your own interpretation of Matthew 13, that is ours,



JW



NOTE: Christ's "return" is not to be confused with his "presence" (parousia) spoken of in Matther 24 verse 3, which began in 1914.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS [END TIMES]

[JehovahsWitness]

[...]Those are your terms, not those of scripture... I am uncomfortable with any term that others use that is non-biblical.

That ... was not intended to be some kind of rule you or I am obliged to, or expected to, keep.

Well then short of stating the obvious your statement is entirely irrelevant. If you (or I ) offer an explanation based on scripture but in our own words I don't see how pointing out that ".. those are yor words not Jesus' " is a valid a counterargument since it in no way detracts of itself from the point being made. I'll refrain if you will.

Short of quoting and saying nothing (which you are free to do if you like, although it might possibly violate forum rules) any accompanying commentary is INTERPRETATION. You do it all the time, indeed we all do. The moment we attribute a meaning to a set of words or even one word (whether that meaning seems clear or obscure) it is interprtating.

So let us not slip into double standards of claiming YOU are just saying what the scripture means but I am interpreting. We are both submitting what we believe the scripture means using our own words, so state your case, present your reasoning and let readers decide which, if any, interpretation is the most compelling.






JW

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1525 by showme]

Showme, Psalm 37 does indeed indicate how long the righteous will inherit the land and live on it.

"The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein FOREVER." (Psalm 37:29)


The "wicked" are not you and me. They are people who are incorrigible in their evil and will not change.

.

[Checkpoint]

[...]Those are your terms, not those of scripture... I am uncomfortable with any term that others use that is non-biblical.

That ... was not intended to be some kind of rule you or I am obliged to, or expected to, keep.

Well then short of stating the obvious your statement is entirely irrelevant. If you (or I ) offer an explanation based on scripture but in our own words I don't see how pointing out that ".. those are yor words not Jesus' " is a valid a counterargument since it in no way detracts of itself from the point being made. I'll refrain if you will.

Short of quoting and saying nothing (which you are free to do if you like, although it might possibly violate forum rules) any accompanying commentary is INTERPRETATION. You do it all the time, indeed we all do. The moment we attribute a meaning to a set of words or even one word (whether that meaning seems clear or obscure) it is interprtating.

So let us not slip into double standards of claiming YOU are just saying what the scripture means but I am interpreting. We are both submitting what we believe the scripture means using our own words, so state your case, present your reasoning and let readers decide which, if any, interpretation is the most compelling.

JW

What can I say? I say yes, yes, yes! Especially to:

You do it all the time, indeed we all do. The moment we attribute a meaning to a set of words or even one word (whether that meaning seems clear or obscure) it is interprtating.

So let us not slip into double standards of claiming YOU are just saying what the scripture means but I am interpreting. We are both submitting what we believe the scripture means using our own words, so state your case, present your reasoning and let readers decide which, if any, interpretation is the most compelling.

Let's do just that!

[Checkpoint]

[quote="Checkpoint enquired[/url

"You do not say why you have called it ... Checkpoint"]...or who does the harvesting[/quote]

Jesus does the harvesting. He uses the angels.


JW[/quote]

Thanks for your clear and specific answer to my question.

My question and your answer continue this discussion, which is based on what Jesus said in his parable of the weeds and wheat, in Matthew 13:

'
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.

39 The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.

41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

Rather than voice an opinion this time, I now ask you, and anyone else, to compare what you say with what Matthew 13 says.

Are there any significant differences, omissions, or additions, in the JW post?

If so, why,, and if not, why not.

F eel free to refrain, or make other comments in observation or response.

[JehovahsWitness]

• MATTHEW 13:30, 39-43

H
A (#1 First collect /identification of the "weeds" (imitation Christians) v41
R
V (#2 then, the gathering the wheat (true Christians) into the "storehouses" (the organised
E Christian congregation v30)
S
T

• And then...

the burning of the "weeds" (v42) (destruction of imitation christianity) and the shining in the kingdom (return of Christ with his 144,000 brothers in kingdom glory v43)

Are there any significant differences, omissions, or additions, in the JW post?

Differences: my words were my own, thus since the post doesn't contain only direct quotes, there are therefore differences in expressions. There are no "significant differences" in ideas, as in there are no ideas that are not in harmony with those found in the scripture.

omissions: my post was not exhaustive, it wasn't meant to cover every thought to be found in scripture, but only some of the main ideas presented in Matthew 13

additions: I added only relevant ideas (expressed in my own words) based on a wholistic approach to scripture. There are no unscriptural ideas added to my post.

I invite anybody that wishes to challenge the above to attempt to do so by explaining what is unscriptural about what I posted ie. what was posted that cannot possibly be true according to the bible.




JW

[Checkpoint]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#1010918]JehovahsWitness[/
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#1010901]Checkpoint enquired[/b]

You do not say why you have called it "harvest time", or what "the harvest" is...?

JW answered:

It is called harvest time because it is a period marked by a spiritual harvest of Christs remaining anointed brothers (meaning a gathering of spirit anointed born again Christians firstly into his congregation and then later to his side in heaven).

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#1010901]Checkpoint asked:

...or who does the harvesting

Jesus does the harvesting. He uses the angels.


JW

Thanks for your clear and specific answer to my question.

My question and your answer continue this discussion, which is based on what Jesus said in his parable of the weeds and wheat, in Matthew 13:

'
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.

39 The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.

41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

Rather than voice an opinion this time, I now ask you, and anyone else, to compare what you say with what Matthew 13 says.

Are there any significant differences, omissions, or additions, in the JW post?

If so, why,, and if not, why not?

Feel free to refrain, or make other comments in observation or response.