Time of Arrival - comments

(from J)

I read the "Time of Arrival" article. I found it very interesting. Though there are many compelling reasons, I can’t agree with it. Specifically, for two reasons.

1) It cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice. Using Jesus as a vehicle to the ransom sacrifice is fine and dandy. But to have Jesus as a willing (perfect) vessel and to have a duality of consciousness detracts the meaning of a “sacrifice”. Jesus sacrificed everything, his life his body, his mind… Michael, in that interpretation, was nothing more than a live-in tutor for Jesus. He left him before the expiration of Jesus’ last breath.

2) It means Jehovah made no real sacrifice. Why test Abraham with Isaac. We are led to believe it is to understand the significance of a father offering his son. A precursor to Jehovah sacrificing his own son (Michael). In what way was Jehovah sacrificing his only-begotten son if he (Michael) was to simply inhabit a body and escape before death? That means that when Jesus expired, the renting of the curtain, the earthquake… what we are led to believe is the pain Jehovah felt at the ‘death’ of his son, it was all for show. With millions of people born and dead in the precursor to Jesus walking the Earth, why would Jehovah care (more) about a ‘man’ who only lived for 30 years?

One of my main points as to why a triune god is disrespectful to Jehovah is the sacrifice to mankind. If god was a trinitarian god as it is taught in some religions, then the idea of a sacrifice is laughable, at best. Because god apportioning himself to affect a sacrificial offering (to himself) for the redemption of mankind is invalidated by the simple fact that god cannot sacrifice to himself. If Michael possessed no fear of death of which Jesus tasted: “For if you have faith that Jesus died and rose again,” – (1 Thessalonians 4:14) then what was the point of the sacrifice? Where was the faith in his father? To pay for the sin of mankind?

If what is proposed were true, think of what that means. God created a vessel (a semi-autonomous skin) who’s sole purpose was to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind. Jesus’ life value is invalidated as he was created for a purpose. Think, he can’t “indulge” himself in any of the human whims because he has been apportioned for a purpose that is beyond his will or comprehension. Michael, God’s only-begotten son, would have no qualms with vacationing in the body of a man, influencing his thoughts, decisions, feeding into his ego, falsely leading people to believe that this man (Jesus) was the son of the Almighty. That he was there to deliver them. That he could perform miracles under the veil of a mortal man who had no more life experience than anyone else on the planet? But Jesus was coached, influenced, guided by the spirit of … Michael? Doesn’t quite sound fair to Jesus, does it?

Besides, if all Michael did was come to Earth “for a time” to minister and guide, without tasting death, then what was the point of granting him immortality? Any of the angels could have done what Michael did. The knowledge of all pre-existent creation was not necessary to “fool” mankind.

I think the biggest issue is that for Jesus to act as a vessel for which his human ‘spirit’ and that of Michael to inhabit is very much in line with a spirit medium. In Chinese, they call them Tongji’s and these are people believed to be chosen by a particular “god/spirit” as an earthly vehicle for divine expression. That sounds pretty similar to what would be described in such a scenario. As mentioned, the only times that such “possessions” were mentioned were from demonic forces. Willingness is immaterial as Deuteronomy 18:11,12 – “anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune teller… for whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah.” Why would Jehovah condemn such things if the possibility of a “righteous” spirit inhabitant be amongst us? Essentially, that is what the apostles and all the followers of Christ were doing, right? Consulting a spirit medium.

---------------------------

(from me - Dave - 09-20-2020)

Hi J

Thanks for writing. As you can see, my response is in black.

I read the "Time of Arrival" article. I found it very interesting. Though there are many compelling reasons, I can’t agree with it. Specifically, for two reasons.

1) It cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice. Using Jesus as a vehicle to the ransom sacrifice is fine and dandy. But to have Jesus as a willing (perfect) vessel and to have a duality of consciousness detracts the meaning of a “sacrifice”. (A) Jesus sacrificed everything, his life, his body, his mind (B)… Michael, in that interpretation, was nothing more than a live-in tutor for Jesus. He left him before the expiration of Jesus’ last breath.

A) The sacrifice was to be a propitiatory sacrifice. (1Jn 2:2) "His sacrifice atoned exactly for what was forfeited by the sinner Adam." [it-1 p. 212] Yes, Jesus "gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." (1Ti 2:6) Adam was a perfect human. Jesus was a perfect human. They corresponded with each other. Michael was a multi-million year old powerful spirit creature. An archangel. The only begotten son of God through whom all of creation came into existence. He does not correspond with Adam at all.

B) Yes, Jesus did sacrifice everything! If it was Michael who died, what did he sacrifice? He is alive and well in heaven. He has his life, his body, and his mind. What is the sacrifice he made? To go to "sleep" (as he referred to it) for three days? (Mt 9:24; Mr 5:39; Lu 8:52; Jn 11:11) To return to his heavenly glory and his Father's side after being in human form? That sounds like an improvement to me, not a sacrifice.

2) It means Jehovah made no real sacrifice. (A) Why test Abraham with Isaac. We are led to believe it is to understand the significance of a father offering his son. A precursor to Jehovah sacrificing his own son (Michael). (B) In what way was Jehovah sacrificing his only-begotten son if he (Michael) was to simply inhabit a body and escape before death? That means that when Jesus expired, the renting of the curtain, the earthquake… what we are led to believe is the pain Jehovah felt at the ‘death’ of his son, (C) it was all for show. With millions of people born and dead in the precursor to Jesus walking the Earth, why would Jehovah care (more) about a ‘man’ who only lived for 30 years? (D)

A) With Jesus' death God lost a perfect son that He miraculously fathered through Mary. A son He no doubt loved very much. (see point D for more on this)

B) Since Isaac was not killed he could be a match for Michael. But Abraham is no match for Jehovah since Jehovah did not need his obedience tested.

C) You may have been "led to believe" that the renting of the curtain was an expression of Jehovah's pain, but scripture tells us it represented the end of a need for an earthly priesthood to offer sacrifices for sinful mankind. Jesus' sacrifice was the final sacrifice. (He 9:24; 10:19-20) If it weren't for the earthquake, would the people have even known that the curtain was torn in two? And would the priests (the only ones with access to the curtain) have understood the significance of it without the earthquake? Or even reported that it happened? Or just secretly repair or replace the curtain and continue on as if nothing happened?

D) Jesus was God's direct son. He may not have been His only-begotten son, but He did directly cause the conception in Mary with His holy spirit. Jesus was a perfect and innocent man. Jehovah no doubt proudly watched him grow up. Does that mean that He cared more for him than any other human? We don't know. But that was not the point. The required sacrifice was not to be made by Jehovah. It was to be made by Jesus. So whether Jehovah was heartbroken, or was indifferent, it had no bearing on the value of the propitiatory sacrifice that Jesus made.

One of my main points as to why a triune god is disrespectful to Jehovah is the sacrifice to mankind. If god was a trinitarian god as it is taught in some religions, then the idea of a sacrifice is laughable, at best. Because god apportioning himself to affect a sacrificial offering (to himself) for the redemption of mankind is invalidated by the simple fact that god cannot sacrifice to himself.

If Michael possessed no fear of death of which Jesus tasted: “For if you have faith that Jesus died and rose again,” – (1 Thessalonians 4:14) then what was the point of the sacrifice? (A) Where was the faith in his father? (B) To pay for the sin of mankind? (C)

A) Personally i have never grasped why an innocent man had to die for the sins of another. I guess that Jehovah's sense of justice is above my pay grade. My best guess is that Jesus' sacrifice was to prove that mankind was not all bad, (Job 1:11) to prove that a perfect human is capable of choosing Jehovah's will over his own, unlike what Adam did. (Pr 27:11)

B) I assume that Jesus' "faith" was that his sacrifice would indeed pave the way for the redemption of mankind with Jehovah. Faith that he would not die for nothing.

C) Yes.

If what is proposed were true, think of what that means. God created a vessel (a semi-autonomous skin) who’s sole purpose was to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind. (A) Jesus’ life value is invalidated as he was created for a purpose. (B) Think, he can’t “indulge” himself in any of the human whims because he has been apportioned for a purpose that is beyond his will or comprehension. (C) Michael, God’s only-begotten son, would have no qualms with vacationing in the body of a man, influencing his thoughts, decisions, feeding into his ego, falsely leading people to believe that this man (Jesus) was the son of the Almighty. (D)

A) How was Jesus "semi-autonomous"? If he was not in full control of himself, and did not have the choice as to whether or not he was sacrificed, then his sacrifice would have had no worth.

B) Jesus was given the opportunity to fulfill the role of a propitiatory sacrifice. He had free will as to whether he did it or not. He even struggled with his decision to carry it out. He had to overcome his strong desire to keep living.

C) It was not beyond his will. That was the whole point. He had to willingly do it. And the fact that it was a very difficult decision for him shows that he had full comprehension of what he was doing.

D) How was it false that Jesus was God's son?

That he was there to deliver them. (A) That he could perform miracles under the veil of a mortal man who had no more life experience than anyone else on the planet? (B) But Jesus was coached, influenced, guided by the spirit of … Michael? (C) Doesn’t quite sound fair to Jesus, does it? (D)

A) Yes.

B) The apostles, and others, were given holy spirit and performed many miracles. Why could not Jesus do the same?

C) Yes. And by angels too. (Mt 4:11)

D) I would appreciate all of the help i could get if i were doing a very difficult job. I think it would have been unfair to send him out without help and guidance.

Besides, if all Michael did was come to Earth “for a time” to minister and guide, without tasting death, then what was the point of granting him immortality?

I don't know the point of granting anyone immortality. Jehovah could just sustain their lives indefinitely, like He will do with everyone else. I guess we will have to ask Jehovah that question. But if you are thinking that it is a reward for being faithful even to death; there are many throughout history who have died for not denying Christ. And if they were not anointed, when they are resurrected to the earthly paradise they will not have the "reward" of immortality. And those anointed who are alive at Armageddon will not taste death, (1Co 15:51-52) but they will still receive immortality.

Any of the angels could have done what Michael did.

Perhaps. But mankind was created for Michael. (Ro 11:36; Col 1:16) He loved mankind dearly. (Pr 8:31) He wanted this to succeed more than any other. And there was definitely a chance that it would not succeed. Jesus could have given in to his fears or desires and not gone through with it.

The knowledge of all pre-existent creation was not necessary to “fool” mankind.

"Fool mankind"? How were they fooled? Everything Christ taught was the truth.

I think the biggest issue is that for Jesus to act as a vessel for which his human ‘spirit’ and that of Michael to inhabit is very much in line with a spirit medium. In Chinese, they call them Tongji’s and these are people believed to be chosen by a particular “god/spirit” as an earthly vehicle for divine expression. That sounds pretty similar to what would be described in such a scenario. As mentioned, the only times that such “possessions” were mentioned were from demonic forces. Willingness is immaterial as Deuteronomy 18:11,12 – “anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune teller… for whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah.” Why would Jehovah condemn such things if the possibility of a “righteous” spirit inhabitant be amongst us? Essentially, that is what the apostles and all the followers of Christ were doing, right? Consulting a spirit medium.

Yes. They were consulting a spirit, but not a wicked spirit. God used his angels (spirits) many times to direct mankind. We have the Bible because spirits directed men to write it and what to write. We are benefitted by that spiritual direction every day. (Ac 7:53)

----

Your belief is not being attacked. It is being refined. If you will notice, your rebuttal is emotion based reasoning, not scriptural. Like when a life-long Trinitarian is shown from the Bible that the Trinity does not exist. They become angry and reject the scriptures shown to them because of the strong belief they have held for so long. All their life they have given heartfelt prayers to God, thanking Him for dying for them. They think that they are rejecting God if they stop believing in the Trinity. But if they are truly searching for the truth, in time their mind opens to what the scriptures actually say. It is a difficult thing to make adjustments to strongly entrenched beliefs that we hold. (2Co 10:4-5)

Fortunately for all of us, accurate knowledge is not a requirement to survive Armageddon. (1Co 13:9-12) I know i still have a lot to learn.

:^)
Dave

------------------

-------------------

(02-13-2021)

(from me, Dave)

J, i am writing this to you here because i do not want to email you so much later and risk being thought of as harassing you. Please know that i welcome any response that you may have, as i do anyone else's response or comments.

I was thinking about your comment about fooling mankind. My response was about Christ's teachings, but i think you are right in that mankind would have to have been fooled in other regards.

Perhaps if they knew that Michael was there within Jesus that people would have reacted the same way you did and accuse Jesus of being demon possessed. (Jn 7:20; 8:48-52; 10:20) This could have caused many to sin against the holy spirit. (Mr 3:29-30) So perhaps it was not only for their benefit but also necessary to fool or trick mankind since they were not ready for the truth.

Do you say that trickery is wrong and so Christ would not have used it?

Consider this: When Jesus' body was removed from the tomb, what happened to it?

[it-1 p. 349] "The physical body of Jesus Christ was not allowed to decay into dust as did the bodies of Moses and David, men who were used to foreshadow Christ. (De 34:5, 6; Ac 13:35, 36; 2:27, 31) When his disciples went to the tomb early on the first day of the week, Jesus’ body had disappeared, and the bandages with which his body had been wrapped were left in the tomb, his body doubtless having been disintegrated without passing through the process of decaying.—Joh 20:2-9; Lu 24:3-6.

After Jesus’ resurrection he appeared in different bodies. Mary mistook him for the gardener. (Joh 20:14, 15) He again appeared, entering a room with locked doors, having a body with wound marks. (Joh 20:24-29) Several times he manifested himself and was recognized, not by his appearance, but by his words and actions. (Lu 24:15, 16, 30, 31, 36-45; Mt 28:16-18) Once a miracle performed at his direction opened his disciples’ eyes to his identity. (Joh 21:4-7, 12) Jesus, having been resurrected as a spirit (1Pe 3:18), could materialize a body for the occasion as the angels did in past times, when they appeared as messengers. (Ge 18:2; 19:1, 12; Jos 5:13, 14; Jg 13:3, 6; Heb 13:2) During the days before the Flood, the angels that “did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place” performed an incarnation and married human wives. That these angelic sons of God were not truly human but had materialized bodies is shown by the fact that the Flood did not destroy these angels, but they dematerialized and returned to the spirit realm.—Jude 6; Ge 6:4; 1Pe 3:19, 20; 2Pe 2:4."

So if Jesus' body was no more, and the body shown to Thomas was a materialized one, that means that the wounds in that body were not put there by the guards who nailed him up and thrust a spear into his side.

That means that Thomas was tricked. The body he was shown was not the one that was nailed to the stake. The wounds he put his finger into were not made by the guards, but were a facsimile to fool Thomas into believing.

He ate fish to fool them into thinking that he was not a spirit, but was human.

(Luke 24:36-43) While they were speaking of these things, he himself stood in their midst and said to them: “May you have peace.” ³⁷ But because they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit. ³⁸ So he said to them: “Why are you troubled, and why have doubts come up in your hearts? ³⁹ See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” ⁴⁰ And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. ⁴¹ But while they were still not believing for sheer joy and amazement, he said to them: “Do you have something there to eat?” ⁴² So they handed him a piece of broiled fish, ⁴³ and he took it and ate it before their eyes.

If he was a human, and not a spirit, how did he appear, disappear, and walk through locked doors?

How did he travel around without being seen?

Why did this perfect man's body not heal from its wounds?

(1 Corinthians 15:44-46) It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. ⁴⁵ So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. ⁴⁶ However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual.

No, but this was a spirit who materialized a body for show in order to trick or fool men into believing it was the original body.

So yes, trickery and deception was used on the apostles. But it was not for wicked purposes, and therefore was not sinful to do so.

Necessary

Why not just tell them the facts? Why was trickery used? Because it was necessary.

''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''' ''''''' ''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''' ''''''''''' ''''' ''''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''' '''''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''' ''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''' '''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''' '''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''

It would seem that if the truth had been made known to the apostles that they would not have carried out their work '''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''' ''''''' ''''' ''''''''':

'''' '''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''' '''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''''''''

''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''''' ''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''

'''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''' ''' '''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''''' '''' ''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''

''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''

'''' '''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' ''' ''''''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''' '''''''''' ''''' ''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''' '''''''''''

''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''' ''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''' '''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''' ''''''''' '''''''' ''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''''''''' '''''' '''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''' ''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''''''''

''''''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''' '''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''' ''''''''' '''''' '''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''' ''''' ''''' ''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''''''

Lying

Do you think that deception and trickery is too akin to lying and is therefore not something that Christ would have done?

In the Bible there are two kinds of lies, but the English language does not have words for each. It is like murder and kill. Those are two words that are similar, but mean different things. The Bible tells us that when a wicked person ends an innocent person's life it is called murder. But when an innocent or righteous person is forced to end a wicked person's life in order to protect himself or others, that is killing. One is a sin, the other is not. (See my article "2017-07 QFR (firearms) - with scriptures and comments")

So am i saying that there is a form of lying that is not a sin?

Yes.

I am saying that.

The Bible condemns testifying falsely against another, and lying to your brothers and sisters in the faith.

(Matthew 19:18) He said to him: “Which ones?” Jesus said: “You must not murder, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not bear false witness,—(Ex 20:16; 23:1; Le 19:16; De 5:20; 19:16-19; Ps 15:3; Mt 19:17-19)

(Colossians 3:9) Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices,—(Le 6:2; Zec 8:16; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25)

If those lies are unacceptable and therefore wicked, where does the Bible say that other lies are acceptable and therefore righteous? The Bible tells us with examples.

Examples of those who lied

Ananias:

(Acts 5:3) But Peter said: “An·a·niʹas, why has Satan emboldened you to lie to the holy spirit and secretly hold back some of the price of the field?

Not only did he lie to the holy spirit, but he also lied to his fellow believers. (Col 3:9) (Wicked)

Ananias' wife:

(Acts 5:9) So Peter said to her: “Why did you two agree to make a test of the spirit of Jehovah? Look! The feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”

She lied to her fellow believers (Col 3:9) and to the spirit of Jehovah. (Wicked)

Sarah:

(Genesis 18:12, 15) ¹² So Sarah began to laugh to herself, saying: “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I really have this pleasure?” ¹⁵ But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh!” for she was afraid. At this he said: “Yes! You did laugh.”

I think that Sarah "was afraid" because she feared for her life if the angel knew she laughed at him. Remember, back then women were subservient and rightly feared harsh punishment (even killing) by their "owners" if their owner merely thought it was deserved. So was Sarah punished or condemned for lying? No. She feared death so she lied out of self-preservation. (Righteous)

Jacob:

(Genesis 27:19) Jacob said to his father: “I am Eʹsau your firstborn. I have done just as you told me. Sit up, please, and eat some of my game, so that you may bless me.”

(Genesis 27:24) After that he asked: “Are you really my son Eʹsau?” to which he replied: “I am.”

Jacob repeatedly lied to his father. It was not for self-preservation or to protect others. So would this not be a wicked act? But Jacob was used by Jehovah. JW publications give excuses for Jacob's lies, but they were still lies. And since Jehovah used Jacob was He ok with Jacob's lies? Was Jacob somehow acting properly? I have not found a way to justify Jacob's lies.

Rachael:

(Genesis 31:35) Then she said to her father: “Do not be angry, my lord, because I am not able to get up before you, for the customary thing with women is upon me.” So he searched on carefully but did not find the teraphim statues.

Jacob said that anyone with whom the statues were found was to be killed (Ge 31:32), so Rachael lied out of self-preservation. (Righteous)

Midwives:

(Exodus 1:19, 20) The midwives said to Pharʹaoh: “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are lively and have already given birth before the midwife can come in to them.” ²⁰ So God dealt well with the midwives, and the people kept increasing and becoming very mighty.

Jehovah "dealt well with the midwives" showing that He approved of their lies. The midwives lied to protect the lives of others. (Righteous)

Aaron:

(Exodus 32:24) So I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold must take it off and give it to me.’ Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” (Ex 32:2-4)

Aaron lied about making the calf, but he probably feared being killed along with those who worshipped the golden calf, so he was lying out of self-preservation. (Righteous)

Rahab:

(Joshua 2:4-6) But the woman took the two men and hid them. Then she said: “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. ⁵ And at dark when the city gate was about to be closed, the men went out. I do not know where the men went, but if you quickly chase after them, you will catch up with them.” ⁶ (However, she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them among stalks of flax laid in rows on the roof.)

This prostitute lied to save the lives of the spies, and in so doing to save her own life and the lives of her family.—Jos 6:22-23; Jas 2:25 (Righteous)

David:

David lied to king Achish in order to remain in his land so that Saul would not find him and kill him, (1Sa 27:1, 8-12) so he was lying out of self-preservation. (Righteous)

Jeremiah:

(Jeremiah 38:27) In time all the princes came in to Jeremiah and questioned him. He told them everything that the king had commanded him to say. So they said no more to him, for no one had heard the conversation.

Jeremiah lied out of self-preservation.—Jer 38:24 (Righteous)

Peter:

(Matthew 26:69-74) Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant girl came up to him and said: “You too were with Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!” ⁷⁰ But he denied it before them all, saying: “I do not know what you are talking about.” ⁷¹ When he went out to the gatehouse, another girl noticed him and said to those there: “This man was with Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ.” ⁷² Again he denied it, with an oath: “I do not know the man!” ⁷³ After a little while, those standing around came up and said to Peter: “Certainly you are also one of them, for in fact, your dialect gives you away.” ⁷⁴ Then he started to curse and swear: “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. (see also Mr 14:67-71; Lu 22:56-60; Joh 18:25-27)

Peter lied so that he would not be taken and killed along with Jesus. So he was lying for self-preservation. (Righteous)

Paul:

(Acts 23:6) Now Paul, knowing that the one part was made up of Sadducees but the other of Pharisees, cried out in the Sanʹhe·drin: “Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Over the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am being judged.”

Even when viewed from a very narrow and skewed point of view, what Paul did cannot be seen as "technically" telling the truth. Having something in common with a Pharisee is NOT being a Pharisee: "I am a Pharisee." Paul lied because his life was in danger. (Righteous)

Paul:

(Acts 9:7) Now the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice but seeing no one.

Here we are told that the other men with Paul heard the voice. No doubt Paul and those men spoke about what had just happened as they led the now blind Paul to Damascus. And no doubt they would have discussed hearing the voice but not seeing who was speaking. So Paul would have certainly known they heard the voice.

(Acts 22:9) Now the men who were with me did see the light, but they did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me.

I think Paul lied to protect the other men from being summoned and "interrogated". (Ac 22:24-25) Men have died during Roman interrogations. So Paul lied to protect those men. (Righteous)

Jesus:

(John 7:8-10) You go up to the festival; I am not yet going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” ⁹ So after he told them these things, he remained in Galʹi·lee. ¹⁰ But when his brothers had gone up to the festival, then he also went up, not openly but in secret.

Some of the very early Greek manuscripts do not have the word "yet" in it there, as it does later in the sentence. To be clear, the Greek word for "not yet" is one word (oupō) , and "not" is a different word (ouk). It's not like the transcriptionist forgot to add "yet" after "not". They used a completely different word. So this was a change in wording, not an omission error.

In those manuscripts the original Greek says: "I am not going up to this festival,"

What did his brothers say?

(John 7:3, 4) So his brothers said to him: “Leave here and go into Ju·deʹa, so that your disciples may also see the works you are doing. ⁴ For no one does anything in secret when he seeks to be known publicly. If you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”

Jesus told his brothers that he was going to do the opposite of what they said to do, which was not go to the festival. And he then gave a reason for why he was not going to go this festival.

Even if Jesus did say "not yet", notice what excuse he gives. "Because my time has not yet fully come.” (Jn 7:8) What did Jesus mean by that? He meant that he was not going to this festival because it was not time for him to die, meaning he would only go when it was time for him to die. "But" he still went, even though his time had "not yet fully come.”

It is argued that the original Greek was changed to "not yet" here by some early transcriptionists to cover for Jesus lying to his brothers. The argument is that what he meant was that he was going later so the wording was changed to reflect that. But it is like if you called me and asked me to go to the park with you, but i said: "I am not (not yet) going to the park because it is raining." And then, after i got off the phone with you, i went to the park anyway, even though it was still raining. What would you think if you went to the park and saw me walking around there in the rain?

That is what Jesus did. He said he was not (not yet) going to that festival because it was not his time to die. But he went anyway.

Why did Jesus tell his brothers that he wasn't going? So that when they spoke to the Jews who were looking for him, they would say that he wasn't coming to the festival and they wouldn't look for him. But if Jesus' intent was to tell his brothers that he would be there later, they would tell the Jews that he would be there later. That goes against what Jesus was trying to accomplish. He would basically have been saying: 'Ok, I'll go later and show myself then, as you ask me to do.'

It was not that he wasn't planning on going to this festival, he just didn't want his brothers who did not exercise faith in him (Jn 7:5) to know, because the Jews were looking for him and he didn't trust his brothers not to inform the Jews that he was going to be at the festival.

And how did he go? "Not openly but in secret." (Jn 7:10) It wouldn't be much of a secret if he had already told his non-believing brothers that he would be there later.

Here is John 7:8 in the 4th century Sinaiticus manuscript (GA-01) with "not" (ouk) in the red box, and "not yet" (oupō), used later in the verse, in the black box.

"I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”

Here is the same thing in the 5th century Bezae manuscript (GA-05).

Here it is in the 9th century Cyprius manuscript (GA-017).

Apparently there are other manuscripts where "not" was not replaced with "not yet", but at the source i used (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript) only some of the manuscripts identify which chapter is on which page of the manuscript. And since i do not read Greek, and these are all before chapter and verse numbers were added, i could not locate the verse by looking through the entire manuscript to show you other examples.

So Jesus lied to his brothers to protect himself from being killed by the Jews. (Righteous)

So just like killing, lying is only to be done when necessary to protect or save the life of yourself or another. Lying merely as a means to an end is not acceptable:

(Romans 3:7) But if by my lie the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also being judged as a sinner?

After Armageddon there will be no lying of any kind.

(Revelation 21:7-8) Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. ⁸ But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.”
(Pr 12:19, 22)

Lying and deception are not the same thing.

In the past God used trickery and deception. (1Ki 22:19-23; 2Ch 18:18-22; Eze 14:9; Jer 4:10)

So did Christ. (Lu 20:27-38; Mt 22:19-21; 17:26)

What do you think?

:^)
Dave

da.getmyip@gmail.com

Last edited 03-18-2022

------------------------------

From MD (12-20-21)

Hey Dave,

Some of the lies you call righteous I would say are better described as excusable or understandable from an imperfect human standpoint, but righteous, I'd say only in some cases. Especially Aaron, who had to know exactly what he was doing but made it sound like he just threw the gold in there and out popped this golden calf. I don't think self-preservation is always an excuse to lie. Sometimes, but probably a case-by-case and it would depend on what you were doing. Like, is it OK to lie to authorities about being a JW? It might be better to say nothing but lying in that case for self-preservation may not be righteous. Peter's lies are understandable and apparently, forgivable since he feared capture and death. But righteous? Maybe, since he was one of the 12 and all. 

I guess I've always had a problem with the organization and others trying to wiggle out of these various lies. These were imperfect people who had fear and failings like all of us, and many weren't even servants of Jehovah (Rahab) so it isn't a stretch at all to understand that she would lie and even defend it. And Jehovah has clearly let people solve problems or do stuff using their own ideas, he doesn't have to condone lying to take it or use it. But I do agree that it's also clear that a lie can be righteous or for righteous reasons. 

It's like the contortions that have been done with that mess of Judah and Tamar. She thought she was doing the right thing and was out of options, I can't find too much fault with that. Judah was just a horny pig and a hypocrite of the highest order (and when you look at his history and two of his three sons, there's some bad DNA in there for sure--maybe Jehovah arranged all this because he saw bad stuff in the 'code', who knows). The fact that she wasn't really a prostitute desn't matter since he didn't know that, yet he was willing to kill her over the act.

Anyways, always good stuff. Gotta do some work. 

-md

-------------------

from me (12-21-21)

Hi MD

Thanks a bunch for writing!!

Some of the lies you call righteous I would say are better described as excusable or understandable from an imperfect human standpoint, but righteous, I'd say only in some cases.

The example i was copying was Matthew 5:45.

(Matthew 5:45) so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous.

We are given no middle ground there. There are none who are said to be a little bit righteous, or mostly righteous. They were either righteous or unrighteous. Right or wrong.

I think that a common misconception is that the word "righteous" means fully good, when it's true definition means "morally right or justifiable". So an act may not be what you want to do, but if it is morally right and justified, then it is a righteous act, even if you would avoid doing it if you could.

Even Paul acknowledges that righteous is not the same as good:

(Romans 5:7) For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

But i agree with you. It is best not to lie at all if you can, which is why i said on page 14: "So just like killing, lying is only to be done when necessary to protect or save the life of yourself or another. "

Regarding Judah, he not only thought that Tamar was a prostitute, but that she was a "temple prostitute." (Ge 38:21) So apparently back then prostitution was not looked down on since they even had them in the temple of Jehovah. But we know that Jehovah did not condone such behavior. (De 23:18)

Personally i really don't like how women were treated back then, even by some Christians, which is why i ranted a little in my article "All Scripture is inspired of God".

:^)
Dave

--------------------------