Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hello Inter,

Just one small point regarding something you said.

"Jesus could not have been describing the second resurrection, because that is a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."

If that is so, the one's in the first resurrection are what?? Super duper righteous??

I don't believe Jesus ever talked of three kinds of resurrections, just two. One for the righteous, one for the unrighteous. Abraham is called a righteous one, just as the christian,the term righteousness is all that is used.

Digging

I've also wondered what would become of the 144,000 after the 1,000 year reign, when Jesus gives the kingdom back to his father. If they are not allowed to marry as kings and priests(which the scriptures say), then perhaps after the 1,000 years, they will. That is as far as I would go with that idea at this time.

As for looking like a Star Wars/Star Trek character......I don't know.....I've always thought it would be really cool to have blue skin and blue hair, and blue eyes- so I could go swimming in the ocean and nobody could see me, cause I'd blend right in! Only partially kidding.:D

Much love,
Sis Micah

Hi all ...:hibye:

Just wanted to make a short comment before starting dinner (lunch) ...

Just in case anyone thought I was being 'dogmatic' ... or expressing a view that I feel everyone must share ... or that I'm somehow not open to 'differing' views ... nothing could be farther from the case ...

As I said it was just some 'ponderings' and 'thoughts' based on something I had recently been reading ... and thought I'd like to share and have some input on ...

Whatever, and however, our God has in mind for our future ... I am quite sure that he will 'satisfy the desire of every living thing' as he promised to do for his human creations ...! :yahoo:

I just found the word for 'in' intesting ... wondering if it may in fact be only during a 'time period' ... (i.e. resurrection time period) ... is all ...

I have been finding in my studies that by being locked into 'certain' mindsets as to what is or what isn't we may have certain surprises in store when ALL is revealed ...

Until then ... I try to keep on learning and searching as asking ... until the time comes for full knowledge to abound ...

I sincerely hope this topic was not too 'sensitive' for anyone ... for I woudn't want to bring up anything that would cause sad feelings for anyone ...

Love as always ... your sis BR:bouncyhearts:

Nice Interpretum!
:thumbsup:

....“The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. ."....I also think the desires of the coming system of things will be alot different than the one we are in now...
"And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God."

"the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever"

Resurrection of life or judgment, Yep, only see two there.
Ahhh to be like angels, :innocent::blush:
Much LOVE,
Sparrow:birds:

When Paul spoke of there being a resurrection of the righteous and of the unrighteous, he wasn't necessarily saying that there would be just two resurrections, he was saying that both the righteous and the unrighteous would be resurrected. Most people conclude that there will be just two resurrections from the words at Revelation 20:5 (that the rest of the dead would come to life at the end of the 1000 years), yet these words are likely spurious, for they don't appear in the most ancient texts.
So, we know that there will be a first resurrection, and we assume that to be heavenly. But when Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, etc. are resurrected, which Jesus indicated wouldn't be heavenly, would we assume their resurrection to be among "the rest of the dead?" This seems unlikely, because Jesus said that such individuals are alive with God, because He's "not the God of the dead, but of the living."
So, if these is a first resurrection to heaven, then there is likely thereafter a resurrection of "the living," followed by the resurrection of "the dead."
By this I'm not saying that the patriarchs are still alive, but just counted among "the living" by God.
As for Luke's account of Jesus' works about marriage in the resurrection, notice how the 2001 Translation renders his words:
‘The sons of this age marry and are married. But those who have been found worthy of that age and the resurrection from the dead don’t marry, nor do they get married. They can’t die anymore either, because they are equal to [God’s] messengers and they are [also] sons of God, because they are sons of the resurrection.’
So, this appears to be a description of those in the first resurrection.
However, that wasn't really the answer to the question that the Sadducees were asking. But he may have side stepped their question to avoid a pitfall they had planned for this common question.

Matthew 22:30...For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage..but are as the angels in heavan....

Its seems there is no room for speculation here....it's pretty self explanatory...nothing can be added ...nor taken away from it...but exactly what it says.

I love to picture things on a more spiritual level and not the carnal.

there is a scripture which says when we see Jesus and what he is like then we shall know and see what we will be like...but for now WE DON'T KNOW.

the transfiguration also comes to mind....but we just don't know now...but the scriptures tell us WE WILL KNOW WHEN WE SEE JESUS.

there is another realm besides this physical realm...

Take Care

OK Mr. J.W. Firstly lovely to see you.

Most people know the man hu as vicky, piglet or that pandora box lady. I was just tucking my brain into hibernation for the winter, and then you turn up!

Luke 20:34 --->
Yes Jesus was answering Saduccees and was no doubt sidestepping their trick questions, which means he may not have been giving the full picture, or maybe it would take greater wisdom on the part of the listeners to understand what he was saying.

My Hebrew etymological dictionary suggests that the name Sadducee may be derived from the word 'Zadokee', (tzedhoqim, pl. of) tzedoqi, literally 'a disciple of Tzadhoq', or Zadok (the high priest who inaugurated Solomon's temple).
Anyway, as we say in English, they thought they were the B's 'n E's. Something with which to be reckoned!

Now, you said WE?...... Er do not assume anything on this board. WE are a rum bunch of misfits, but most of us are still willingly struggling with the scriptures.

I am not convinced the first resurrection means purely heavenly.

My understanding of prOtE, is that it does not necessarily mean first in time but rather can also be one of...preeminence. (According to Liddell and Scotts it can mean both)

E.g. the current American 'First Lady', is so far the last of many 'First Ladies'.

I know you are good in Greek, so appreciate your considered opinion on this point.

If it is the case, that first refers to quality and not  time, then the ensuing words of Rev. 20:6 make more sense. 'Over these the second death has no authority'. Those who have proven themselves faithful to death are part of the first resurrection.

It is obvious that the second death is not related to time, and possibly in the case of the 'son of destruction', Judas, one does not need to die twice to even be part of the second death, so it is qualitative.

So if we assume 'second death' in the same verse is one of quality, we ought to give that same consideration to the 'first resurrection'.

Luke 20:35,36,37.
In verse 36 these ones are considered isaggeloi.

Isos....equal. isos, skelos isosceles triangle. A triangle with equal legs.
So strictly speaking they are not 'like' angels but isaggeloi means equal to angels.
If you are a human resurrected or not, I cannot see how this scripture refers to you.

The repetition of oute/oude I thought 'ups' the emphasis on the ensuing words. My understanding of this is that it is absolutely impossible (like adunamai +) for them to die, rather than the lame expression 'neither can they die'. Then it says they will be sons of God.
So equal to angels, impossible to die, sons of God.

In verse 37, Jesus then does seem to change tack and explain something else.

Lots to consider and I don't think the 2001 footnotes have it all.....yet.

Much love vicky

Man Hu... What is it? Cute!
You write with a British accent.
Yes, I agree with you on all these points, and we gladly accept well researched documents for publishing.
I am quite unsure about the first resurrection also, because chronologically it seems to come after Armageddon in the order shown in Revelation 19, 20 (which I believe is correct), and I once wrote that it was an earthly resurrection. For the word resurrection (gr. anastasia) means to stand again. And even Jesus stood again on the earth after his resurrection.
However, it was pointed out to me by one of our group that the scripture at Revelation 20:4 says of them, "those who sat down on them were the ones who were executed with axes for testifying about Jesus and for telling about God,"
And dying for one's faith seems to be a requirement for those who receive heavenly life. I know that most will disagree with this assessment because they either think of themselves as the anointed or consider someone they highly regard but died in their sleep, as one. Sorry, I just don't buy that. That's why they are called the anointed, or literally (in Greek) christs.

Anointed.....I agree, and maybe baptised into His death? Sounds possible too.

I know this is a little off the subject, but it is interesting. Seems the society wants it both ways. They recognize Caesar's authority over things that belong to God yet say they're no part of the world(and let's not forget all those brides maids and showers etc), but reserve for themselves the right to recognize a marriage when Caesar has no record of it. :eat: They won't put the national flag up on the platform, but will stand on the platform and speak by the authority of Caesar. Can you imagine Jesus being told that he would be invited to perform an unscriptural marriage ceremony in the Temple but he must first go to Pontius Pilate to obtain permission?

*** w56 9/15 567-8 Marriage Ceremony and Requirements ***

2 It must be remembered that the first Christians were Jews, or Israelites, even as Jesus himself was. Reasonably, then, these Jewish Christians carried over their marriage customs and arrangements from their former Jewish social system to the new Christian system of things. But one thing is to be noted without fail, that from the days of Abraham forward there was no priest, Levite or other religious official present to perform any marriage ceremony. Yet the marriage was valid and recognized by Jehovah God. It was also registered at the city or village recording office, and births resulting from the marriage union were also recorded there. The two genealogical records of Jesus were doubtless copied from the town records of Bethlehem by Matthew and Luke. This leads to the question, By whom may valid Christian marriages be solemnized? Is a civil or nonreligious marriage just as binding as a religious one, or is marriage a sacrament and so valid only when religious?
3 No, marriage is not a sacrament requiring the presence and performance of a religious clergyman or a Christian minister. As God’s prophet, Abraham was his accepted priest for a large household, but there is no record that he was there when his oldest servant brought Rebekah from Mesopotamia to Isaac in the Negeb of Palestine. Isaac was walking alone, meditating, and the servant brought Rebekah to him and related to Isaac just how he had obtained her for him. “After that Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother. Thus he took Rebekah and she became his wife.” But this taking of her as wife had public witnesses, namely, Abraham’s marriage agent and “the men who were with him” and Rebekah’s “nurse” and her other “lady attendants.” (Gen. 24:2, 54, 59-61, 66, 67, NW) Isaac had not taken out any marriage license, any more than it is necessary to do so in some countries today. Isaac’s father Abraham, the head of the theocratic organization, had authorized it and Jehovah God who was looked to for guidance had directed the steps of the marriage procedure all the way. So a marriage license was not necessary in his case. But his taking her as wife was witnessed by more than four, and it was registered in the records of Abraham’s theocratic establishment and, of course, it is recorded in the Bible today. There was no religious ceremony about it, although God’s will was sought and recognized all the way through.
4 There is no account of a religious ceremony for Isaac’s son Jacob when marrying Leah and Rachel. (Gen. 29:18-30) Neither did Jehovah God in all his hundreds of laws to his chosen people Israel order and outline a religious marriage ceremony for them. The right and duty to solemnize marriages was not assigned to the priestly family of Aaron or the Levite temple servants at all. The marriage, from the time of the engagement through to the uniting of bride and groom in his father’s home, was all of private, family arrangement without priestly or Levite participation (outside of the tribe of Levi itself). It was publicized to all the community, was duly witnessed and then was registered at the local recording office; which was why Joseph was required to go with his companion Bethlehemite Mary to their native city and get registered in the days of the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus.—Luke 2:1-6, NW.
5 When Jesus performed his first miracle, at Cana, in the province of Galilee, he was at a wedding celebration. But he was not invited there to officiate as a minister, for he was not of the priestly family of Aaron nor of the tribe of Levi and was not recognized as a religious minister. He was invited there with his mother and his disciples merely as a guest,

9 What is done before the congregation is done “before God,” just as in ancient Israel what was done before the judges or rulers was done before God. (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28, NW; RS) What if there is an African marriage between Christians and the marriage is held in one town or village but it has to be registered with the government in a distant city, not convenient for the newlyweds to get to right away? At the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s witnesses a “Declaration of Marriage” can be filled out. This does not have any legal value and does not take the place of a civil registration, but it does have recognition among God’s people. It testifies before the New World society that the newly united couple acknowledge that their marriage is in force and binding, and that they will register it with the Civil Law as soon as it is convenient. This “Declaration of Marriage” is then filed with the records of the congregation and the Watch Tower Society’s office, and the newlyweds can enter into marriage relations until they get registered civilly. Thus the Society has a record of the marriage during the time that the civil government may not have it, and by its servants the Society can check, after an allowance of time, to see whether the proper civil registration has been made and the married couple have complied with the law.

Hi Freyd,

'..but reserve for themselves the right to recognize a marriage when Caesar has no record of it.'

I had the opposite happen when I married for the second time.
We had a civil ceremony and the usual 2 witnesses were JW's. Afterwards at the small reception at home, the PO was invited and demanded to see our wedding certificate as he was not there when we officially married. The sister who acted as a legal witness cajoled him out of his sober mood. Needless to say I felt untrusted. :(

Tessa