Posts by Disillusioned JW

103

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman in

only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.

“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.

Disillusioned JW

A moment ago the following occurred to me. I consider it an insight and 'inspiration' in a naturalistic sense, but do some of you readers consider it inspiration in a supernatural sense from God the Father and/or from Jesus Christ the Son of God? Do some of you think such even though I am now an atheistic naturalist, though I seriously and sincerely partook of the memorial emblems for two years privately in my home?

Since Revelation says it is presented in signs (and thus presents matters symbolically) perhaps when it mentions Michael the Archangel it is neither saying that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel nor speaking literally of Michael the Archangel. Perhaps instead its mention of Michael the Archangel (like it mention of the lamb who/which was slaughtered) is a symbolic reference to Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus Christ (if he existed) was not a literally a slaughtered lamb, perhaps according to Revelation he was not literally Michael the Archangel but rather is symbolically represented in Revelation as Michael the Archangel. In contrast to that, perhaps in other books of the Bible where Michael the Archangel is mentioned, the meaning is literally of Michael the Archangel.

If the above is the case, then the biblical references to Michael the Archangel are reconciled with each other, and the confusion of whether or not Jesus is Michael is also cleared away! I think that number of cases I understand the Bible better than the writers of the WT (including the governing body of the JW religion). What do you readers think about that?

Sea Breeze, Vanderhaven7, and Fisherman what do you think of the above?

Furthermore, since I spent so much time studying the Bible and theology should I obtain an online "diploma mill" degree in theology, as well as an online "diploma mill" degree as a minister of atheism (and/or of humanism), and write a biblical theology book which besides saying what I think the Bible teaches on certain subjects, also presents an atheistic point of view of the Bible? Do you think I am scholarly enough to write well such a book and make a significant amount of money from such?

103

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman in

only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.

“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze I hope that especially you read this post, since in it I acknowledge that I have now adopted some of the views you stressed to me in this topic thread.

Today, with the aid a KJV concordance, I have looked up some verses in which the word "spirit" is used in the KJV Bible in regards to what is in humans. While in some of those verses the word "spirit" can be thought of as having the modern meaning of merely mind, emotion, intellect, or life energy, without any supernatural nature definitely being intended, in other cases it does seem to definitely also mean something supernatural. It is thus looking that Sea Breeze is right in saying that in the Bible the words translated as "spirit", when used in regards to 'something' inside humans, has the meaning of something which is supernatural and thus immortal, and it also has conscious attributes.

However, in regards to the Hebrew word translated as "soul" it is unclear (to me at least) if the meaning is that of something supernatural. In most instances the word "soul" in the OT does not convey anything supernatural to me. Genesis chapter one (such as worded in the NWT at least) says that certain nonhuman animals were created as souls, not that souls were imparted into them. Likewise as worded in the KJV (RV, ARV, ASV, and 1984 NWT), Adam upon God breathing into him became "a living soul", instead of having a soul put into him. However, since the Hebrew word translated as "breath", is also translated as "wind" and as "spirit", that verse about God breathing into Adam could also be saying that God put spirit (not a spirit being) into Adam. Similarly, in the NT in one verse Jesus is said to breathe holy spirit into his disciples.

In the NT the meaning of the word "soul" in most instances is clearly used in the sense of person (or human life), but there are a few instances in the NT which seem to possibly contradict that meaning. But maybe in those few instances it is referring to future prospects of the soul being granted eternal life or being denying such eternal life. If the latter is case then it would agree with the WT's teaching in regards to those verses.

But in the NT some verses seem to be saying that the human "soul" is supernatural and immortal. An example of that is in Revelation about holy ones who were executed by 'the beast', but it should be remembered that the first paragraph of Revelation says that Revelation is presented in signs (and hence symbolically), thus the conscious dead holy souls described as under the altar might not be meant to be interpreted literally.

Perhaps in some instances the Greek word translated as soul in a few NT verses (where on the surface a supernaturally meaning seems to be indicated) actually has the meaning of spirit instead of the Hebrew meaning of soul. In other cases, the vast majority of cases, in the NT the Greek word translated as soul seems to have the Hebrew meaning of a mortal soul which is the entire human (or nonhuman animal), which God in future might give eternal life, as well as cases in which claim God in the future (speaking from the point of view of the future as if it already happened) has made some human souls eternal.

Considering the above, it seems to me that regarding the Hebrew and Greek words which are translated as "soul" in English translations of the Bible, the WT's definition of the biblical "soul" is the actual meaning which the Bible teaches - except perhaps in regards to a few NT verses. However, it also seems that the WT's definition of the Bible's meaning of the the biblical "spirit" of humans is incorrect (at least partially incorrect).

32

Date of Adam's "Creation?

by Slidin Fast in

how do jws resolve these conflicting facts.. 1. no matter how you spin it, bible chronology calculates to circa 4000 bc for adam's creation.

i followed the trail many years ago and that's what it adds up to.. 2. the most cursory investigation of any branch of relevant science puts man's habitation on the earth as hugely earlier than that.

it's now so well-proved that anyone disputing it is guilty of wilful ignorance.

Disillusioned JW

Wouldn't what you said make the flood stories inconsistent with (not compatible with) the facts pertaining to evolution, including the ones you mentioned (including the subsequent rapid pace of evolution which would be required if a global flood really happened at the supposed timing of the event)? I do not see us as being in being in disagreement with that, pertaining to a global flood.

But wouldn't such problems stated by you (and also believed by me) only pertain to a global flood, and not to a local flood caused by a rise of the sea level of the Black Sea prior to 4500 BCE? Some Christians (including some who are convinced of macroevolution) teach that the flood was only local, not global, and thus the only animals brought into the Ark were local animals. There is strong evidence that a local flood caused by a rise of the Black Sea was the basis for the flood story which from which the flood stories of Genesis derived from. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis . The flood stories of Genesis, which culturally evolved from some earlier flood stories, very possibly have some elements of fact within them. Some scientists published content saying there is scientific evidence for such a local flood which 'inspired' the stories in Genesis.

See the following articles (pertaining to a local flood, not a global flood):

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/09/13/artifacts-found-in-the-black-sea-may-be-evidence-of-biblical-flood/814a339e-5e62-4ddd-b4c3-c14d9a015360/

- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology [The content of this article is related to that of the above article. The two article were published on the same day. This article mentions that the marine scientist named Robert Ballard who says he found evidence of a local flood caused by the Black Sea is also "the scientist who discovered the wrecked Titanic". In the article he says he not making the claim "that this is the biblical flood", saying he doesn't know whether or not it is. But this article was published in 2000. In a later article he says it is evidence that Noah's flood happened; see the ABC News article below.]

- https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533 [This article is from December 05, 2012. The first paragraph of that article says the following. "The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is one of the most famous from the Bible, and now an acclaimed underwater archaeologist thinks he has found proof that the biblical flood was actually based on real events."

32

Date of Adam's "Creation?

by Slidin Fast in

how do jws resolve these conflicting facts.. 1. no matter how you spin it, bible chronology calculates to circa 4000 bc for adam's creation.

i followed the trail many years ago and that's what it adds up to.. 2. the most cursory investigation of any branch of relevant science puts man's habitation on the earth as hugely earlier than that.

it's now so well-proved that anyone disputing it is guilty of wilful ignorance.

Disillusioned JW

Hi Jeffro. Yes a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis chapters 1- 2 creation accounts (without some evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution) are not consistent with evolution. Likewise the Genesis flood accounts (there are two interwoven flood accounts, pertaining to the day of Noah) when interpreted as one global flood are also inconsistent with evolution.

11

Question #2 for JW's

by BoogerMan in

how could the "two witnesses" mentioned in revelation chapter 11 possibly be j.f.

rutherford and his companions who got jailed and then released in 1919?.

w14 11/15 p. 30 - so in the fulfillment of revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of god’s kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years.. watchtower november 15, 2014, p. 30 - revelation 11:7 says that it is "the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss" which kills the 'two witnesses'.. since the wild beast of rev.

Disillusioned JW

Rutherford originally taught the beast which went into the abyss was the World Court at the Hague (which later became part of the League of Nations, and the World Court is now known as the International Court of Justice - now "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations") and that it came out of the abyss as the League of Nations. The WTS creates a number of inconsistencies when it revises certain of its doctrines. However, even the original teaching of the beast which went into the abyss is problematic if applied to the WTS teaching regarding the two witnesses, since the World Court is not an entity which caused Rutherford and companions to get jailed.

When it comes to books about the Bible (including theology) produced for public (often at very low prices) the WTS, the publisher of the LDS, and the publishers of the SDA to to me to produce by far the most literature. But which Christian publishers, if any, produce more such literture? Also, which Christian publishers produce far better Bible literature for the general public than the WTS, while at the same time in large quantities?

Are Zondervan, Thomas Neslson, and Holman in that group and maybe Abingdon? What about Oxford and Cambridge? It seems to me they produce books by a large number of authors, since they are not specific to any particular religion of Christianity. In order to get a consistent Christian message, perhaps I should ask which publisher of a specific church/denomination of Christianity produces the best doctrinal literature about the Bible.