Posts by Disillusioned JW

17

What did Jesus Teach the "Kingdom of Heaven/God" is?

by truth_b_known in

the books of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the beginning of acts are filled with what the authors purport are statements of jesus.

jesus is quoted as making several statements about "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of god".

those statements are often given as parables that start with a phrase something like "the kingdom of heaven is like...".

Disillusioned JW

Though many people interpret the NT expression of "Kingdom of heaven" (including the WT [in regards to Jesus and the 144,000] and Vanderhoven7) as meaning the "kingdom in heaven" years ago I discovered that a number of scholars say it doesn't mean that (and it does not mean that Matthew 8:10-11 says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be in heaven instead of on Earth). Those scholars say it means the kingdom which receives its authority from God and thus that the location of the authority is from heaven, with the kingdom on Earth. Some of them also say it was a way to avoid using the name/tile "God" when communicating to Jewish non-Christians (ones who try to avoid over use of the 'name' of God) and that such is why it is used in the gospel called "According to Matthew" (which is claimed to be primarily written to specifically convince Jews) but not in the gospel called "According to Mark" and not in the gospel called "According to Luke" (or only infrequently used in those two books). That was a key insight to me when I doing independent biblical study (that is independent of WT literature) while I was still a Christian. It contributed to me coming to believe that the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) and the Church of God (Sevenh Day) are the two religions of Christianity which are the closest to biblical Christianity.

Keep in mind that Daniel 2:44 says the kingdom will be on Earth, ruling from Earth (though with it being brought into existence form a source located in heaven, namely from YHWH God).

Note that in the Lord's prayer (also called the our father prayer) the book called "According to Matthew" attributed Jesus as telling his apostles/disciples to pray that the father's will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. This is consistent with the idea of expecting the kingdom to eventually extend to Earth, with the Messiah ruling on Earth.

For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_heaven_(Gospel_of_Matthew) . It says the following.

'Kingdom of heaven (Greek: βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν) is a phrase used in the Gospel of Matthew. It is generally seen as equivalent to the phrase "kingdom of God" (Greek: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. ... Classical scholar Howard W. Clarke notes that Matthew 3:2 is the first of twenty-nine references to the "kingdom of heaven" in the Gospel of Matthew.[2] The gospels of Luke and Mark tend to prefer the term "kingdom of God". Matthew's use of the word "heaven" is often seen as a reflection of the sensibilities of the Jewish audience this gospel was directed to, and thus tried to avoid the word "God." Most scholars feel the two phrases are theologically identical.'

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kingdom_of_God says the following.

'In the synoptic Gospels (which were written in Greek), Mark and Luke use the Greek term "Basileia tou Theou," commonly translated in English as "Kingdom of God," while Matthew prefers the Greek term "Basileia tōn Ouranōn" (Βασιλεία τῶν Ουρανῶν) which has been translated as "Kingdom of Heaven." Biblical scholars speculate that the Matthean text adopted the Greek word for "heaven" instead of the Greek word for "God" because—unlike Mark and Luke—it was written by a Jew for a Jewish audience so, in keeping with their custom, avoided using God's name as an act of piety. In Matthew, "heaven" stands for "God." The basis for these terms being equivalent is found in the apocalyptic literature of Daniel 2:44 where "the 'God of heaven' will set up a 'kingdom' which will never be destroyed."

... Jesus assumes his audience understands the Kingdom foundation that was laid in the Hebrew Scriptures. When he speaks of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven (both meaning the same thing) he speaks of the time of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. A time of a restored earth where the faithful will worship and serve their God forever under the rulership of a righteous leader of the Davidic line. This was the Messianic hope of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and was carried over and echoed in the words of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and others in the Greek Scriptures.

Jesus would attach the theme of the gospel message itself with this Kingdom idea. Luke 4:43 tells the reader that Jesus' very purpose for being sent was to "preach the gospel about the Kingdom." He then would send out his disciples to speak this message even before they understood anything about his death and resurrection. Compare Luke 9:1-6, Matthew 9:35, Matthew 10:7, Matthew 16:21-23, etc. The initial seed that must be sown in the hearts of men was also identified as the word of the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 13:19. Shorthand for the word of the kingdom was given in Mark and Luke's version of the parable of the sower as "the word" (Mark 4:14) and "the word of God" (Luke 8:11).

Jesus often spoke of the Kingdom of God as the destination for the righteous in the end of days.[18] Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount shows that those who follow the "beatitudes" are rewarded with the Kingdom of God/inheriting the earth/comfort etc. Matthew 19 gives an account of Jesus equating popular terms such as "eternal life" and "saved" as the same thing as entering the Kingdom of God when it is established upon the earth. Jesus even taught his disciples to pray: "Let Your kingdom come, let Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." '

20

Apostates apparently have their own terminology

by Vanderhoven7 in

a dyed in the wool witness actually posted this as if non-witnesses invented unheard of terminology,.

"those who devote their life to criticize jehovah’s witnesses use a lot of very specific expressions and ideas common only to them:.

“8 old men in new york”,.

Disillusioned JW

In a combination of two of the Star Trek movies the Borg was eventually completely defeated. In the story line it was shown that the Borg's claim of "resistance is futile" was a false claim (when directed to members of the Star Trek crew). If we apply that idea to the WT it can give us a hope that the WT will eventually be completely defeated.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Rocketman123, regarding people "looking for help and assistance in their problematic sociological lives" help can be found in some self-help books and articles written from a secular perspective that make no promotion of religion. My experience has been that the good books in that category are very hard to find, since the vast majority of self-help books mix in religion, but they do exist.

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

Diogenesister, when I decided to become baptized as a JW at age 15 I did so for what I thought was because of logical reasons and based upon facts, but I knew it greatly influenced by the emotional mindset that comes from being taught there is a God who will bring Armageddon. However some of what I thought were facts (ones taught to me by the WT) were only half-truths and some of reasoning at the time was faulty. I also didn't know enough relevant facts. But later after I learned more and improved my critical thinking skills I determined I made a mistake in concluding that the JW religion is the true form of Christianity. Later I learned that much of biblical Christianity is also wrong. Eventually I became an atheist. I thus was swayed by logic and facts to becoming an atheist, because even when I had formerly decided the JW religion was the truth, it was because I valued using logic and facts to decide what is truth - instead of faith.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

The above mentioned Wikipedia article about Carroll says the following.

"Sean Michael Carroll (born October 5, 1966) is an American theoretical physicist and philosopher who specializes in quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology. ... He is known for atheism, critique of theism and defense of naturalism.[5][6][7][8] He is considered a prolific public speaker and science populariser.[8][9][10] ...

Carroll has also worked on the arrow of time problem. He and Jennifer Chen posit that the Big Bang is not a unique occurrence as a result of all of the matter and energy in the universe originating in a singularity at the beginning of time, but rather one of many cosmic inflation events resulting from quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy in a cold de Sitter space. They claim that the universe is infinitely old but never reaches thermodynamic equilibrium as entropy increases continuously without limit due to the decreasing matter and energy density attributable to recurrent cosmic inflation."

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

On page 3 of this forum topic I said I wonder if "some people might have some paranormal ability". But I now don't wonder if such exists. I currently strongly think that such does not exist. I get that impression partly because of research I have done in the past few months on the topic of ESP.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

A moment ago I rediscovered that I had created this forum topic (it wasn't listed when I clicked on the link which lists the topics created by me). This topic is a great place for me to promote scientific naturalism thus I am reviving this topic.

Yesterday while doing an internet search on how to persuade a Christian to become an atheist I found the fascinating web page located at https://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-a-Christian-to-Become-Atheist .

While doing an internet search on scientific naturalism I found an article by Sean Carroll in which Sean says he is a naturalist. I then searched for more information about him and found a Wikipedia article about him this link .

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

When Vanderhoven7 on page 16 of this topic thread said regarding himself "I choose not to discuss faith issues with Atheists" that immediately gave me the idea that he believes in Christianity and the Bible based solely upon faith, rather than upon the type of evidence (such as historical or scientific) that could conceivably convince an atheistic ex-Christian to once again believe in Christianity. If that is the case then it would be correct for Vanderhoven7 to conclude it would be pointless for him to try to persuade me and other atheists of Christianity. A great many of Christians who became atheists did so for logical reasons, at least for reasons which we are convinced were logical ones. Atheists of that type are not persuaded by arguments based upon faith (at least the kind of faith which atheists perceive is blind faith).

Perhaps I am wrong in thinking (perhaps by intuition) that Vanderhoven7 holds onto his belief in Christianity solely (or primarily) because of faith. But if such is the case, I would only know I am wrong if Vanderhoven7 told me so and explained his reasons to me. He has made his choice to not tell me his reasons. OK, that is fine.

Somewhere I read something which to the effect said that logic and facts will only convince a Christian to became an atheist if the person became a Christian due to reasons based upon logic and facts. If a person didn't try to use logic and facts to determine if Christianity is true, before becoming a Christian, then that kind of person will probably never disbelieve in Christianity by an atheist presenting logic and facts against belief in Christianity. [Update: A moment I relocated one of the sources about when the use of logic doesn't persuade people to change their views. It is at https://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-a-Christian-to-Become-Atheist . It says the following. "You must understand where your friend is coming from in order to build a bridge between your two belief systems. At the same time, remember that you can't use logic to persuade someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get into."]

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, that is true about the topic of this thread. Therefore I ask this question to you: Why do you continue to believe in the Bible's claim of 'the generation which will not pass away', despite reading arguments which refute the NT, the Bible as a while, and Bible's God? Didn't all of the first century CE apostles (and other disciples) of Jesus pass away? Wasn't (according to church history) Peter, James, and Paul martyred - before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE? According to Acts wasn't Stephen also martyred before 70 CE? Considering the life span of people in the first century CE, isn't it likely that virtually all of the adult Christians (including nearly all of those adults who had met Jesus) of 30 CE had died before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE? In effect, didn't their generation effectively pass away before 70 CE?

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 noticed a moment ago in regards to me posting that my account for site become blocked (by the creator/moderator of the site) form doing certain things, that on page 7 of this topic thread you said the following to me. "Were you told this? Or, is this something you assumed? Maybe you don't know how to do it. You won't be able to post until you select a subject area. Have you tried this?" The following is my answer to those questions.

I know it because all attempts by me to create new topic threads during the past several months have failed, though prior to that I was able to create about 27 new topics (I know that a subject area must be chosen). Likewise I can no longer mark a post as "Like" or "Dislike". (That happened shortly after I marked a post by Simon as "Dislike" and after I made a post stating outrage about a post Simon had made. In my post I said he was violating his own rules. Very soon after that both that post of mine and Simon's own post were deleted. [Technically I can still mark a post as "Like" or "Dislike" but after I refresh the web page it is no longer marked as such.]) Furthermore, as of several months ago I can no longer send email through this site. That began several months ago shortly after I sent an email to a person in which I provided documentation for my reasons of an angry complaint I had about Simon. Very shortly before I lost the ability to send email through the site I received through the site a very angry email from Simon, which in part said I violated some rules of the site.

The mere act of me making this current post to you in answer to your questions might cause further problems for me, but I am taking that risk so that your questions will be answered (provided this post doesn't get deleted).