An Interesting Editorial about LIfe After Death

[rbrown1205]

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/news/ci_22018147/two-views-life-after-death

Apparently the writer had extensive conversations with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I think that his recall about there not being any former human in heaven now is faulty, but he seems to remember quite a bit of it. Would it be worth the effort to respond to him?

[Sheep]

Would it be worth the effort to respond to him?

Probably not, for two reasons that I can think of. First, it has never been recommended by the Faithful and Discreet Slave to respond to debate questions in a public place like the Internet. The main thrust of our ministry is in private, face to face conversations, so we can properly assess the questions and motives of the individuals to whom we speak. You can only do that in a person to person setting. Second, if an article like that compels you to want to clarify matters for the writer, keep in mind that it also can attract others with less worthy motives, especially apostates.

Concerning that last point: It is my view, which has been seen with several newspaper articles that mention Jehovah's Witnesses, that apostates are looking for a public forum to broadcast their hatred. If you were to respond to the writer with a well thought out comment, we can only imagine how an apostate could respond to your comments. Would you then feel compelled to respond to that comment? Where would that kind of exchange be headed?

My view is: Don't start something you can't stop. Anyway, wait for some other responses to your question here. Then you will have perhaps a more balanced viewpoint of it, and be able to make your own decision.

[Greenfield]

The priest who wrote it gave his email address, so it would be possible to respond to just him. I think it would be worth a shot. Perhaps clarifying how those two scriptures he thinks support the Catholic view actually fit in with the rest of the Bible would be beneficial.

Side note: Interesting to see how tradition and worldly philosophy seem to have equal standing with the Bible for him. Also interesting that he never tried to refute our view but just attempted to harmonize ours with his somehow.

[Joey]

The priest may like to continue the discussion on this or another subject with JW's, so contacting him via his email would give him this opportunity.

That would be worth the effort.

[rocket]

I find it interisting that he uses Lu 23:43 as support for his theory because it defies logic. Jesus could not be in Hell and Paradise at the same time unless Paradise is Hell. Another thing, being a Catholic priest, he should be aware of Vat 1209 of which has a Greek simi-colon after the word translated "today". The ink consistancy has been verified to be the same as the original scribe and not a later addition. The only thing this could possibly prove if true is that in the 4th century a scribe believed that Jesus said "truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise." Punctuation marks were not used in first century Greek but gradually over the centuries added to the text in harmony with the scribes understanding of the verse. (Vatican) Vat. 1209 is a good example of that very thing. Fifth century Curetonian Syric, SYc worded the verse, "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden."