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

Correction: Where i wrote "In the future I might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots" I meant to write 'In the future it might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots".

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

Sea Breeze, I didn't say I am a materialist, I said I am a naturalist. You seem to equate the terms 'materialist' and 'naturalist'. I have brought this to your attention in at least one other post. There is a difference in philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism. I also think there is a subtle difference between "scientific naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism". I never l claimed to be a materialist, but rather a naturalist. That is because even before I ceased believing in supernaturalism I was aware of the philosophical arguments which say that materialism is incompatible with belief in numbers, logic, love, etc.

In my post I don't argue against the reality of non-material things in general, but rather I argue against the realty of specific non-material things - namely against the supernatural. That is a distinction which you seem to refuse to acknowledge. I am thus not inconsistent in this matter. Numbers, logic, and love, for examples, are a part of the universe and hence a part of nature (in the broad sense of the word 'nature').

The reason why I stopped believing in the supernatural (at least in regards to entities which are defined as interacting with humans) is because the evidence of them which should exist if they are real doesn't exist. To me you are presenting a 'straw man' argument against scientific naturalism and against philosophical naturalism.

My entire life experience has been totally devoid of the supernatural. I have investigated claims of the existence of the supernatural, including claims that supernatural phenomena manifests among humans but I have not found any conclusive evidence of such. In contrast, I have very frequently experienced mathematics, information, grammar, logic, reason, ideas, language, science, morality, truth, concepts, codes, loyalty, and emotions (including happiness, joy, misery, sadness, loneliness, anger, hate, fear, shyness, pleasure, desire, and forms of love).

The ideas of YHWH God, Baal, Zeus, a gremlin, and a fairy exist, but well beyond a reasonable doubt neither of them exist as a living being.

Yes I believe that mathematics, logic, and other so-called 'things' exist, though not directly consisting of matter-energy. PBS TV had a science episode in which scientists shared their idea of whether math exists or not. Some scientists believe it does and granted some others don't. I consider some of the 'things' in your list to be attributes of energy-matter when in various configurations. None of those things would exist if energy-matter never existed. Even before the universe (or multi-verse), as commonly defined, existed matter-energy in some form existed (such as quantum fluctuations). Love did not exist until biological life of certain kinds came to exist, since love is an attribute of the minds of some biological beings. In the future I might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots.

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 and other Christians, what would it (if anything) take for you to stop being convinced of Christianity and of the NT's claims pertaining to the doctrines of Christianity? [I ask this partly because I am discouraged that my efforts to persuade Christians away from belief in Christianity and the Bible appear to be having almost no degree of success.]

From my perspective so much evidence and so much sound reasoning have made available to you on this site that Christianity is false, that much of the NT is false, and that much of the OT is false, yet you persist in believing in Christianity. Why? I am baffled that is it so hard for so many Christians of high intellect to cease persisting in believing in Christianity (even theistic Christianity, which is by far the most common form) despite them reading a considerable amount of the evidence and argumentation which has been presented against Christianity.

In my case, when I was a Christian prior to a few years before ceasing to be a God-believer I had read very little of such evidence and argumentation (and I had heard very little of such). Most the evidence I had read during that time was simply some of the scientific evidence that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, that scientists have discovered natural processes of the formation and ongoing cosmological change of the universe (including of the Earth), that according to the vast majority of scientists biological evolution (including human evolution) on planet Earth is a fact, and that the human mind is the product of the functioning human brain.

During that time (the time prior to a few years before I ceased to be a God-believer) I had read none of the evidence against Christianity and the Bible from atheists in literature promoting atheism. That is because I had not dared to read any pro-atheism literature. I had only encountered (namely in a college English literature course's book) a very brief amount of the evidence and argumentation in quotes of deistic literature (literature written in the late 1700s through the early 1800s by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine). But after a few years of me reading and studying much of such I ceased believing in Christianity, in the doctrinal claims of the NT and the OT, in YHWH God and Christ and Satan, and in the supernatural.

I yearn for the vast majority of human society, including the vast majority of humans of western civilization, including the vastly majority of humans of the USA, to embrace scientific naturalism (without embracing totalitarianism).

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 and other evangelical Christians, outside of what the NT and certain other scripture books (and books based upon them) say, what evidence is there (if any) that the holy spirit (an alleged holy spirit) dwells in Christians? Can it be scientifically demonstrated that such a spirit dwells in Christians? Can it also be scientifically demonstrated that such a spirit dwells in Christians to the exclusion of all non-Christians? How can it be demonstrated (if it can be demonstrated) it/he is someone (or is something) other an a purely imaginary idea? In other words, what evidence is there (outside of religious literature) that the holy spirit exists? You are making the claim that it/he exists here on planet Earth, since you claim it is dwelling within Christians, therefore if your claim is correct there should be demonstrable evidence to back it up.

According to Sea Breeze all living humans have a Tri-Partite nature in which the spirit of God exists in all living humans. But what evidence (outside of religious literature) is there is the the spirit of God (the alleged spirit of God) exists in humans, though not in non-human animals (other them being breathers)? Has it been scientifically demonstrated to exist in humans?

I was raised from infancy by baptized JW parents and I was raised to believe in the JW religion and to practice it. Despite that, prior to me becoming baptized as a JW Christian I never believed that the spirit of God, or the holy spirit of God, or an other spirit being (or spirit entity) existed in me or dwelt in me. Likewise while I was a baptized JW I did not I believe any kind of spirit entity was ever inside me. Furthermore, when I was an independent Christian I did not I believe any kind of spirit entity was ever inside me, though I knew of passages in the book called "According to John" which say that holy spirit dwells in Christians. At no time in my life did I have any physical sensation, or emotional experience, or any other detected experience within me, or belief within me of any kind of spirit entity being inside of me at any moment. How could such be the case if all humans have Tri-Partite nature which includes the spirit of God? Furthermore, how could it be the case if the holy spirit dwells within all Christians?

Furthermore, if the holy spirit and/or Christ Jesus dwells in Christians and instructs them, then why is it that Christianity is so divided doctrinally into numerous sub-religions (into numerous churches, and into numerous denominations, and into sects, as well as into what some refer to as cults)? Why do the theologians (with advanced degrees in theology and in NT studies) of the numerous sub-religions of Christianity disagree with each other so much in regards to doctrines and in regards to interpretations/explanations of the Bible? Why haven't the various religions of Christianity united themselves into one religion of Christianity, especially since according the book called "According to John" says that Jesus said that the apostles (and presumably also the later disciples) of Jesus all would be united as one? Furthermore, why hasn't Christianity prevented itself from becoming divided in the first place? How it can be true that all of the sincere devout priests, ministers, pastors, "fathers", and elders of the various religions/sub-religions of Christianity have the indwelling of the holy spirit (also known as the spirit of truth) and/or the indwelling of the Christ, when they remain doctrinally divided instead of being doctrinally united?

Can it be demonstrated that Christians live more upright lives than Buddhists? If not, how can it be true that the Christ and the holy spirit dwell within Christians? Can it be scientifically demonstrated that the so-called holy spirit even exists (that it/he exists) anywhere, whether in some humans on planet Earth, or in an alleged supernatural heavens, or in the physical 'heavens' (outer space) of the universe, or any place else?

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

In an earlier post I said "Of the four gospels in the NT it seem to me that the Gospel which is attributed as being according to Matthew is the one which comes the closest to saying what the entirely human Jew named Jesus taught." But, perhaps the gospel named "According to Mark" is the one which comes the closest.

Interestingly of the 4 gospel books of the NT, only the one named "According to Mark" has a statement within the start of the book saying "the gospel of Jesus Christ". That statement of "the gospel of Jesus Christ" is in the very first verse of the book and at least one scholar thinks it was the original name of the book. In that verse a number of manuscripts include the phrase "the son of God", but not all of the manuscripts include that phrase (see the translators' note in the NRSV and the translators' note in the 1984 NIV). The 1984 NWT does not include the phrase "the son of God" in the main text of Mark 1:1. In the TNIV the entire first verse of Mark 1:1 says "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,". That is identical to the wording of the 1984 NWT except it says "Christ:" instead of "Messiah,".

The earliest copies of the four gospels which are in the NT original had no human name as part of their title. We know that because Justin Martyr had no titles for them and he simply called them the "memoirs of the Apostles" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels ).

If I recall correctly, the earliest ones called the "Church Fathers" in their quotes of a gospel account called it "the gospel" without mentioning who specifically wrote it. If I recall correctly, the wording of it is not exactly the same as any of the known extant gospel books. Perhaps it was the earliest book of the gospel (or very close to it) - in their tradition, and thus older than the gospel named "According to Mark".

A number of NT scholars consider what they call "Q" to be the earliest gospel, but as an independent source is hypothetical. It consisted mostly of sayings of Jesus. Note the above mentioned website says the following regarding "Q". "Matthew and Luke share a further 200 verses (roughly) which are not taken from Mark: this is called the Q source. ... It has no passion story and no resurrection, but the Aramaic form of some sayings suggests that its nucleus reaches back to the earliest Palestinian community and even the lifetime of Jesus. ... A large majority of scholars consider it to be among the oldest and most reliable material in the gospels." Note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source says the following.

"The Q source (also called Q document(s), Q Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια : logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark.

... Some scholars argue that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the basis for the synoptic tradition.[34][35] They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), the Gospel of Mark is where it should be as it was the first gospel written and was used as a source for the later gospels.[36] Following it should be Q; but not only is Q not where it should be at the top of Jerome's list, this treasured work recording the Logia of Christ is mentioned nowhere by Jerome.[36] Rather, the first seminal document is not Q, but the Gospel according to the Hebrews.[37]"

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

The Preface to Bart Ehrman's Book on Revelation: Expecting Armageddon can be read at https://ehrmanblog.org/preface-to-my-book-on-revelation-expecting-armaggedon/ . Note that it claims Revelation teaches some of the same things which a few Christian critics (on this site) of the WT claim of the WT and of some of its teachings. Those particular critics say the WT is wrong in saying that many people will destroyed by God, that the WT is wrong in saying that God will be wrathful, and that the WT is wrong in saying that even some of those whom the WT says will survive the 1,000 and the test at the end of the 1,000 still might destroyed by God later.

Ehrman's Preface in part says the following.

"The overwhelming emphasis of Revelation is not about hope but about the wrath and vengeance of God against those who have incurred his displeasure. For the author of Revelation, that entails the vast majority of people who have ever lived, including, perhaps surprisingly, a number of committed Christians. The book repeatedly indicates that God is angry and that Christ seeks to avenge his own unjust death, not just on those who were responsible for it; his vengeance falls on the “inhabitants of earth.” His followers too want revenge and are told to go out and get it. ... God’s faithful followers, his “slaves,” will be saved .... the followers of Jesus, will rule the earth forever.

That is indeed a happy ending for some people. But ... The saved are God’s enslaved minions who do what he demands. The love of God – for anyone or anything – is never mentioned in the book, not once. The book is instead about the “wrath of God” — as stated repeatedly — as well as the wrath of Christ, and the violent vengeance wreaked on the inhabitants of earth leading up to the appearance of the glorious city from which God’s slaves will rule the planet. ...

At the end of my book I will consider why the Revelation was nearly excluded from the New Testament and ponder whether the ancient Christian opponents of the book may in fact have had some valid insights. In particular, I will compare the views of the author, John of Patmos, with the teachings of the Jesus."

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

Bart Ehrman continues by saying the following. "... The people, in the Book of Revelation, human beings who aren't on the side of God, are actually destroyed. They are wiped out. This is the view that is fairly consistent throughout the New Testament, starting with Jesus. Jesus believed that people would be destroyed when - at the end of time, they'd be annihilated. So their punishment is they would not get the kingdom of God. That also is the view of Paul, that people would be destroyed if - when Jesus returns. It's not that they're going to live on forever. And it's the view of Revelation. People do not live forever. If they aren't brought into the new Jerusalem, the city of God that descends from heaven, they will be destroyed."

Bart's words indicate, among other things, that not everything the WT claims are biblical doctrines are wrong. The WT when explaining the teachings of the Bible got a lot things right after all! I thus didn't entirely make a mistake when became a JW instead of joining some other version of Christianity. A number of distinctive teachings of the WT really are the teachings of parts of the Bible! Now I don't feel quite as miserable for having joined the WT's JW religion.

The WT is correct in what they say about Jesus not being part of a Trinity, in saying that the Bible teaches that the human soul is not immortal, in saying that the Bible teaches that many people will become permanently annihilated, and in saying that the Bible teaches that during the reign of Jesus Christ many people will live in paradise on Earth. The WT is also right in saying that parts of the Bible became corrupted, even tampered with.

Bart Ehrman has the TRUTH about the Bible. Bart Ehrman is in the TRUTH of atheism. Bart is correcting his former incorrect ideas about the Bible and Christianity. Listen to Bart Ehrman. Read the teachings of Bart Ehrman. For him the light of understanding is getting brighter and brighter, figuratively speaking.

Bart also says the following.

"There have always been people who actually picked a time when it's going to happen. And there are two things that you can say about every one of these people over history who've picked a time. One is they based their predictions on the Book of Revelation. And secondly, every one of them has been incontrovertibly wrong (laughter). So that should give one pause. The things that are happening now are absolutely dreadful as, of course, they were in 1916 to - 1914 to 1918 and as they have been at other times in history.

The book that I'm writing that I'm now calling "Expecting Armageddon" is all about that. It's about how people have misused the Book of Revelation to talk about how the end is coming and how it always seems like it's going to be coming in our own time. And everybody thinks this is as bad as it can be. And, you know, this time we may have it right. This kind of thinking, though, really came to prominence at the end of the 19th and into the 20th century and hit big prominence in 1945, when we actually had the means of destroying ourselves off the planet, which we still have, by the way. People aren't talking about nuclear weapons anymore, but they probably should be because that's another way this whole thing might end."

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

Bart Ehrman, an influential NT scholar, at https://ehrmanblog.org/was-paul-the-founder-of-christianity/ says the following.

"Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was soon to arrive with the appearance from heaven of the Son of Man. People needed to prepare for that imminent catastrophic event by turning to God and living in the ways that he decreed through the proper observance of the Torah, principally by loving (and trusting) God above all else and by loving their neighbors as themselves. Those who did so would survive the coming onslaught and would be brought into the Kingdom.

Paul agreed that there was an imminent disaster to take place. But in his view, that would happen when Jesus himself arrived from heaven in judgment. The way a person would survive the onslaught was not by obeying the Law of God or by loving their neighbors as much as themselves. Salvation would come only by believing in Christ’s death and resurrection.

... In other words, Jesus preached about God and his coming Kingdom; Paul preached about Christ and his death and resurrection. Important similarities, yes; but also fundamental and crucial differences."

Of the four gospels in the NT it seem to me that the Gospel which is attributed as being according to Matthew is the one which comes the closest to saying what the entirely human Jew named Jesus taught. I also think it best represents the teachings of Jesus than any of the letters attributed to Paul (and according to Ehrman and other NT scholars many of the letters attributed to Paul are actually forgeries instead of being written by Paul).

At https://www.npr.org/transcripts/300246095 Bart Ehrman discusses his book called How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. Ehrman says the following.

"The earliest Christians thought that Jesus had been taken up into heaven and then made a divine being and that he was coming back. And they thought it was going to happen very soon. ...

Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.

These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.

So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. ...

And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was."

At https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says Ehrman discusses his book called Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. There he says the following.

"Our view that you die and your soul goes to heaven or hell is not found anywhere in the Old Testament, and it's not what Jesus preached. I have to show that in my book, and I lay it out and explain why it's absolutely not the case that Jesus believed you died and your soul went to heaven or hell. Jesus had a completely different understanding that people today don't have. ..

EHRMAN: I think one of the hardest things for people to get their minds around is that ancient Israelites and then Jews and then Jesus himself and his followers have a very different understanding of what the relationship between what we call body and soul. Our view is that we - you've got two things going on in the human parts. So you have your body, your physical being, and you have your soul, this invisible part of you that lives on after death, that you can separate the two and they can exist - the soul can exist outside of the body. That is not a view that was held by ancient Israelites and then Jews, and it's not even taught in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, what we would call the soul is really more like what we would call the breath. When God creates Adam, he creates him out of earth, and then he breathes life into him. The life is in the breath. When the breath leaves the body, the body no longer lives, but the breath doesn't exist. We agree with this. I mean, when you die, you stop breathing. Your breath doesn't go anywhere. And that was the ancient understanding, the ancient Hebrew understanding of the soul, is that it didn't go anywhere because it was simply the thing that made the body alive.

And so in the Old Testament, there's no idea that your soul goes one place or another because the soul doesn't exist apart from the body. Existence is entirely bodily. And that was the view that Jesus then picked up. ...

EHRMAN: Right. So this is a really important shift for understanding both the history of later Judaism and the history of later Christianity and the historical Jesus. About 200 before Jesus was born, there was a shift in thinking in ancient Israel that became - it became a form of ideology, a kind of religious thought that scholars today call apocalypticism. It has to do with the apocalypse, the revelation of God. These people began to think that the reason there is suffering in the world is not what the prophets had said, that it - because people sin and God is punishing them; it's because there are forces of evil in the world that are aligned against God and his people who are creating suffering. And so you get these demonic forces in the world that are creating misery for everyone.

But they - these apocalyptic thinkers came to think that God was soon going to destroy these forces of evil and get rid of them altogether, and the world would again return to a utopia. It'd be like paradise. It'd be like the Garden of Eden once more. The people who thought that maintained that this Garden of Eden would come not only to people who happened to be alive when it arrived; it was going to come to everybody. People who had been on the side of God throughout history would be personally raised from the dead and individually would be brought into this new era, this new kingdom that God would rule here on Earth." ...

EHRMAN: Yeah. That became a view somewhat in Judaism, and it became a very pronounced view in Christianity. The - after Jesus. Jesus himself held to the apocalyptic view that I laid out. He taught - his main teaching is that the kingdom of God is coming. People today, when they read the phrase kingdom of God, they think he's talking about heaven, the place that your soul goes to when you die. But Jesus isn't talking about heaven because he doesn't believe - he's a Jew - he doesn't believe in the separation of soul and body.

He doesn't think the soul is going to live on in heaven. He thinks that there's going to be a resurrection of the dead at the end of time. God will destroy the forces of evil. He will raise the dead. And those who have been on God's side, especially those who follow Jesus' teachings, will enter the new kingdom here on Earth. They'll be physical. They'll be in bodies. And they will live here on Earth, and this is where the paradise will be. And so Jesus taught that the kingdom of God, this new physical place, was coming soon, and those who did not get into the kingdom were going to be annihilated.

What ends up happening is that, over time, this expectation that the kingdom was coming soon began to be questioned because it was supposed to come soon and it didn't come soon, and it's still not coming, and when is it going to come? And people started thinking, well, you know, surely I'm going to get rewarded, you know, not in some kingdom that's going to come in a few thousand years, but I'm going to get rewarded by God right away. And so they ended up shifting the thinking away from the idea that there'd be a kingdom here on Earth that was soon to come to thinking that the kingdom, in fact, is up with God above in heaven. And so they started thinking that it comes at death, and people started assuming then that, in fact, your soul would live on.

It's not an accident that that came into Christianity after the majority of people coming into the Christian church were raised in Greek circles rather than in Jewish circles because in Jewish circles, there is no separation of the soul and the body. The soul didn't exist separately. But in Greek circles, going way back to Plato and before him, that was absolutely the belief. The soul was immortal and would live forever in Greek thinking. And so these people who converted to Christianity were principally Greek thinkers, they thought there was a soul that live forever. They developed the idea, then, that the soul lived forever with God when it's rewarded."

Folks note that what is being said above are the teachings of Bart Ehrman, an influential NT scholar; they are not the words of the WT though in number of respects Bart is teaching the same as the WT (and in some other respects he is teaching the same as atheistic naturalists [Bart now is an agnostic atheist]).

Folks, please read the rest of what Bart Ehrman says at https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says . It is extremely insightful. When you do so note that he says the following.

"And the other interesting thing is that what the Gnostics did, by reading their ideas into Jesus, is also what the Orthodox Christians did, by putting words in Jesus' lips that supported their ideas of heaven and hell. And so in our various Gospels, you have Jesus saying all sorts of things that are contradictory because different people are putting their own ideas onto his lips."

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.