Posts by Disillusioned JW

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Errata

Corrections to my prior post: Where I said "people did no earn the gifts" I should have said "people did not earn the gifts". Where I said "faith without words is dead" I should said "faith without works is dead". Where I said "Part of the Bible are figuratively" I should have said "Parts of the Bible are figuratively".

Where I said '2 Peter chapter 2 speaks of those who "escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but who' I should have said '2 Peter chapter 2 (NASB Updated) speaks of those who "escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" but who'.

Where I said "2 Peter chapter 3 makes reference to the flood of Noah's day of the day of the Lord" I should have said "2 Peter chapter 3 makes reference to the flood of Noah's day and it makes reference to the day of the Lord",. Where I said "(see verse 11) and be" I should have said "(see verse 11) and are to be".

Where I said "thus indicating is possible" I should have said "thus teaching it is possible".

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7, people often only give gifts to people who have acted in certain ways to them. Though no one earned the gifts, the givers often choose to give only to those whom he/she has a favorable opinion of - while at the same time believing that those people did no earn the gifts. Parts of the Bible give the impression of teaching that God acts similarly. The Letter to the Hebrews teaches that faith without words is dead, and it teaches that those who have faith will have works which accompany the faith.

Part of the Bible are figuratively 'at war' with other parts of the Bible, and even parts of the NT are figuratively 'at war' with other parts of the NT. This shows that the Bible is entirely the book of humans and not the book of God. Some of the human writers of the Bible were disagreeing with some other human writers of the Bible, and they were trying to contradict the words of each other. Even some individual books of the Bible contradict themselves, and thus show evidence of being edited to include an opposing view. In other words, some people dared to add words (stating an opposing message) to existing books of the Bible, even to words attributed to Jesus! That is despite warnings like that found in Revelation 22:18-19!

Though parts of the NT say that the salvation of Christians are assured (provided they believe in Christ as their savior), other parts of the NT say it is not guaranteed, but that Christians must also act in a godly and holy manner in order to be saved.

In the story about Noah's Ark, Noah and his family had to build the Ark and enter it in order to be saved. Likewise according to the story, anyone else who wanted to be saved had to exercise faith by entering the Ark. According to the Gospel attributed as being according to Matthew, when the son of man comes, it will be as in the days of Noah. That same gospel claims that Jesus told his disciples that they need to keep on the watch for his return. If they were already eternally saved, why were told they have to keep on the watch?

2 Peter chapter 2 speaks of those who "escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but who later became overcome by that which they had escaped from. Verse 21 (NASB Updated) says that for those who were overcome that "it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them."

2 Peter chapter 3 makes reference to the flood of Noah's day of the day of the Lord (though the 1984 NWT says "Jehovah's day") coming as a thief and that as a result Christians are be a people who are "in holy conduct and godliness" (see verse 11) and be "looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (see verse 13). Verses 14-15 (NASB Updated) say "Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation ...".

Revelation 22:12-15 claims that Jesus says he will give a reward to each one as his work is. The book says that Jesus says that those who wash their robes will receive access to the trees of life and entrance into the city. Revelation also says that Jesus says that those outside of the city are "the dogs", those who practice spiritism, the fornicators, the murders, the idolaters, "and everyone liking and carrying on a lie". Verse 19 says there are some (those who take away from the words of the book of Revelation) whom "God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city" thus indicating is possible for some Christians to loose the prospect of salvation.

6

Getting rid of old Watchtower books.

by I quit! in

jw
friends

anyone in the orange county or la area want some old watchtower books that i want to get rid of.

i bought them when i first left the tower to look things up.

they've been sitting around garages or my shed for 30 plus years.

Disillusioned JW

My sister and my mom never seem to discard any of their WT books. I've seen books of my mother from the 1950s and possibly some from the 1940s. Her mother and step-father (who was an elder for many years) retained their old WT books and my mom has inherited them. Those WT books (from my mom's JW parents) go back to the 1930s. I think my sister and my mom think that all WT books are too holy/precious to discard, even if they haven't read any of them in decades.

For a period of time I considered WT books dated to prior to 1965 to be desirable books (due to me having been a very active JW) and thus to me they were collectibles, and thus important additions to my personal library. I found most of the books at two thrift stores (after I ceased being active as a JW). I purchased the books from those stores (and on eBay I purchased other WT books), including all 7 volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. I thought it was so "cool" to find and collect those old books and fascinating to look at them. But after I read considerable sections of all of them my appreciation for most of them greatly diminished. The very old books (with copyright dates ranging from about 1885 to 1965) had many strange teachings (most of which are no longer taught by the WT). To me, many of the books by Rutherford were very offensive to read. Reading the content of many of the books was also boring to me. As a result I eventually sold (on eBay at nice profits) most of the pre-1965 WT books which I had collected, as well a number of later WT books.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Thanks Wonderment. Your answer to me makes a lot of sense and you supported it well.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

A moment ago noticed that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Nimoy says "Live long and prosper" is a Jewish religious blessing, however I don't see that phrase as being anywhere in the Bible, though it might be a paraphrase of something said in the Bible. Likewise I don't yet see that wording as being used in Jewish worship. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_salute , which says the following.

"In his 1975 autobiography I Am Not Spock, Nimoy, who was Jewish, wrote that he based it on the Priestly Blessing performed by Jewish Kohanim with both hands, thumb to thumb in this same position, representing the Hebrew letter Shin (ש in Square Script, or Paleo Hebrew 𐤔‎), which has three upward strokes similar to the position of the thumb and fingers in the gesture. The letter Shin here stands for El Shaddai, meaning "Almighty (God)", as well as for Shekhinah and Shalom. Nimoy wrote that when he was a child, his grandfather took him to an Orthodox synagogue, where he saw the blessing performed and was impressed by it."

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

"90+age"! Whoa! Congratulations waton! May you continue to live long and to prosper. You have well exceeded the biblical lifespan mentioned in the Psalms (of 70 or 80 years). Not many people, especially not men, have achieved that. But I don't know whether you are male or female.

[By the way, Leonard Simon Nimoy, the actor who portray Spock in Star Trek, was raised as Orthodox Jewish and he said that the salute his character used in greetings "symbolizes the Hebrew letter shin, the first letter in the word Shadda"i. See whichhttps://qz.com/352855/the-secret-history-behind-leonard-nimoys-spock-salute/ and https://www.startrek.com/article/the-jewish-ritual-that-led-nimoy-to-create-the-vulcan-salute . Since that salute stems from Judaism and since I am now an atheist perhaps I should no longer make that salute.]

Regarding the question of "Jehovah or Jesus" I think it is obvious that the NT focuses on Jesus as Lord and Christ far more than it focuses on YHWH/Jehovah God the Father. It is also obvious that the WT focuses much more on Jehovah than on Jesus. The WT has increasingly focused on Jehovah since about the time it adopted the name "Jehovah's witnesses" (later written as "Jehovah's Witnesses") as the name of the religion it started.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

waton, I think you meant verse 4 instead of verse 3.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

My current primary interest in studying the Bible (besides trying to find ways to influence Christians to cease believing in the Bible) might be in treating the Bible as a complex intellectual puzzle. Much of Bible does seem to be an intellectual puzzle to me. There is a fascination for me in solving puzzles of various kinds. Even as a young child I liked solving puzzles, such as jigsaw puzzles, word puzzles, number puzzles, diagram puzzles, and also drawings of mazes (in which one tries find the path from the entrance of the maze to the exit of the maze).

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Folks, years ago (after I ceased nearly all JW congregational attendance [other than Memorial attendance], when I studied the Bible critically and within its immediate context, without using WT explanatory literature) I first got the idea that some of the content of the Gospel of John seems to be out of the proper sequence.

For example, to me chapter 15 (and maybe chapter 16) seems like it belongs in between chapter 13 and 14, or near that point (such as in between 13:35 and 13:36). It seems to me that the narrative is less confusing and thus easier to comprehend, and would be in a much more logical sequence, if the chapters were located that way and that such might have been original placement (though not preserved in any of the known extant copies of the Greek manuscripts). A moment ago I looked up in two commentaries to see if either of them also says such. I noticed that The Abingdon Bible Commentary (copyright 1929) on page 1084 in the discussion of John 13:31-38 says in part the following (I also noticed I had made a note in the margin of that portion of the commentary).

"Mofffat in his translation of the N.T. places chs. 15 and 16 after v. 31a, and it must be admitted that 13:31b-14:31 indicates that Jesus rose from the table, and that the prayer (ch. 17) was uttered as all stood, ready to go forth to Gethsemane; other indications, too minute to mention here, point to some such sequence. Other arrangements have been suggested: the only one which need be mentioned is that chs. 15 and 16 should follow 13:35. ... Peter's remonstrance against any separation leads to the warning of his betrayal. It is placed on the way to Gethsemane in Mk. 14:29, another indication that the present arrangement of the record is not the original and historical." I own a copy of Moffatt's Bible translation and I notice that in a number of places, including in the Gospel of John, that he has sections of scripture rearranged. I don't remember if I first got the idea that chapters 15 and 16 are displaced from reading that translation of the Bible, or entirely on my own. But I know that for many years (including while I was an active JW and for a number of years afterwards) that much of the Gospel of John was very difficult for me to understand. Furthermore, that Gospel was never one I had much appreciation for, for to me much of its content has always (at least in the long dialogues attributed to Jesus Christ) been very difficult to understand and very redundant to me, and thus very boring to me.

I never had great interest in contemplating spiritual concepts (at least prior to me studying the Bible independently); I always preferred to spend most of my contemplative free time on naturalistic concepts. People have told me that the Gospel of John is the most spiritual of the gospels of the NT. Of the four gospels in the NT, the Gospel attributed to Matthew has always been my favorite. But maybe if I were to read the Gospel attributed to John now, it might would be more comprehensible to me than before (since I now know more about the Bible and since I now have greater reading comprehension of the Bible). If I were to read that entire gospel now perhaps it would give me a better impression than what I had before I became a convinced atheist.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Wonderment, I notice also that the footnote refers to Jesus as "a creature". Did the translators consider Jesus to be a created being, or did they simply mean a fleshly being (in this specific case a human being)?

Because of the connotation (or one of the meanings) of the word "creature" I think that atheistic naturalists probably should not refer to living fleshly beings as "creatures" (unless they mean that the universe created/made them), since doing so might give theists and creationists an incorrect impression of what the atheists meant. However we who are now atheists grew up using that word (without even thinking it meant in some cases created beings) and old habits are hard to break.

Wonderment, shortly before you made your reply to me (about the footnote) I decided to look at the Gospel of John to see what it says about the holy spirit. But I decided to do so by flipping open a RV Bible to a random page of that Gospel and read what I see in a random group of verses there. Chapter 14:8 was the one I started reading. I then continued reading through verse 14. Those verses don't mention the holy spirit, but later I continued reading a few verses further and noticed that verses 16-17 refer to the "Comforter ... even the Spirit of Truth" whom I presume is the holy spirit.

Please read John 14:8-12 in the RV or the ASV. Notice in verse 10-11 it says "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" and notice that verse 10 Jesus says "the Father abiding in me". For the moment please read those words literally and ask yourself what they mean in a literal sense. Then please ask yourself if according to the gospel account did Jesus intend that literal meaning. Also consider verse 20 which the account claims Jesus said that his apostles are "in" him and that he is "in" them. Please tell me your thoughts on these matters. We know how the NWT uses the phrase "in union with" in these verses (and note that the NWT also uses the word "remains" in verses 10 and 17) and the explanation that the WT gives of these verses, but is that understanding what the account was meant to convey?

Note the use of the phrase "our abode with him" in verse 23 in the RV and ASV and note that in that verse the 1984 NWT does not resort to saying "in union with" or "remains in union with" or something very similar. Note instead that in that verse it has the exact wording of the RV and ASV in saying "our abode with him". Why did the 1984 NWT say "our abode" in that verse but not "abiding" in verse 10 and not "abides" in verse 17? Was it because the use of it in verse 23 did not (at least in the mind of the WT's writers) conflict with WT theology?

Wonderment and other Christians what do you make of John 14:12-14 in regards to what the account says Jesus said the works his apostles will do (and that Christ will do whatever his apostles ask in his name)? Do you believe that the account is also speaking of what what Christ's disciples in general would do - even after the end of the first century CE? If so, where is evidence of Christians today doing works that the gospels says Christ did - and even greater than that which the gospels claim Jesus Christ did? If atheists were to witness such works wouldn't it convert many of them (especially those who used to be devout Christians) into being believers in God, Christ, and Christianity? I haven't seen such works, though some Christians have personally told me they have witnessed an amazing healing. Furthermore, what do you think of what verses 13-14 say about Christ saying he will do anything his apostles ask in his name? Do you think that today it also applies to Christians in general?