Diogenesister I noticed you said that ".... we evolved from an ape like creature some 100 - 200, 000 years ago" but wasn't that species a species of human (though not our species, Homo sapiens) of the genus Homo? Granted it might have also been an ape since a number of scientists now say we modern day humans are also apes, since those scientists have adopted a new definition of the word "ape". However far before 200,000 years ago there existed a nonhuman species of ape which was one of our ancestral species (that is, a species which is a distant ancestor of our species).
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
40
Is it Logical To Beleive In A Creator - GOD ? In This Scientific Age ?
by smiddy3 ini don`t think so .
hasn`t science ,astronomy ,time , .....proven it an illogical beleif ?.
with the information about this solar system and it`s planets ,other stars and their planets that we have information about ,and the fact that no god has ever revealed him/her self in any shape or form 'there is no evidence that a creator / god has ever existed.. except in the minds of humans who want to control a section of humanity .. the fact that religions rely on "you have to have faith" to beleive in a god ,surely is a cop out.. i look forward to your comments .. and a happy new year to you all..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
40
Is it Logical To Beleive In A Creator - GOD ? In This Scientific Age ?
by smiddy3 ini don`t think so .
hasn`t science ,astronomy ,time , .....proven it an illogical beleif ?.
with the information about this solar system and it`s planets ,other stars and their planets that we have information about ,and the fact that no god has ever revealed him/her self in any shape or form 'there is no evidence that a creator / god has ever existed.. except in the minds of humans who want to control a section of humanity .. the fact that religions rely on "you have to have faith" to beleive in a god ,surely is a cop out.. i look forward to your comments .. and a happy new year to you all..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Ding, please read the book by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss (an atheist) called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, or some other scientific source promoting the same main idea. Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking (an atheist who is now dead) and particle physicist Victor J. Stenger (an atheist who is now dead) also promoted the idea that our universe came from (or at least could have come from) that which commonly is thought of as nothing. If you read what they say you will learn their explanations of how such is completely in harmony with the laws of nature, including all of the conservation laws of nature. See also my topic threads about scientific naturalism, since I discuss the evidence and reasoning there. Learning those ideas of theirs (I first learned it from Hawking) is what caused me to cease wondering if a deistic type of god exists; as a result I become a positive/strong atheist scientific naturalist (namely someone convinced well beyond a reasonable doubt that no god at all exists pertaining to our universe).
In light of modern scientific knowledge the God (or intelligent creator-designer) concept no longer has any explanatory power for the existence of us, or of other life on Earth, or even of our universe. As a result the God (or intelligent creator-designer) concept is no longer needed.
-
40
Is it Logical To Beleive In A Creator - GOD ? In This Scientific Age ?
by smiddy3 ini don`t think so .
hasn`t science ,astronomy ,time , .....proven it an illogical beleif ?.
with the information about this solar system and it`s planets ,other stars and their planets that we have information about ,and the fact that no god has ever revealed him/her self in any shape or form 'there is no evidence that a creator / god has ever existed.. except in the minds of humans who want to control a section of humanity .. the fact that religions rely on "you have to have faith" to beleive in a god ,surely is a cop out.. i look forward to your comments .. and a happy new year to you all..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
We are all subject to the laws and forces of nature. For example if a person jumps off the top of a very tall building that person will very quickly experience their subjection to the force of gravity. Unless the person is using a parachute, or a jet pack (or some other device for providing levitation in harmony with the laws of nature), or unless there a net (or something similar) below them, the person will soon pay the price for trying to ignore his/her subjection to the force of gravity.
The reason given by some about us being social beings/animals (I prefer to not say "creatures" since that term calls to mind the idea of a creator god) and how that regulates our actions is also relevant. Non-human apes are also social animals and they also have a sense of morals as a result, and sometimes they break one of their communitiy's social rules (especially if they think the others in their group won't observe their intended action). Anthropologists have discovered that about them, yet the Bible does not say the nonhuman apes were made in God's image and the Bible does not say they inherited sin, and the Bible does not say they are sinners, and the Bible does not say they need to believe in Yahweh and Jesus.
The idea that "There are a lot of things we don't know and have not figured out, and as long as those gaps exist, our need to be certain will guide us towards religious belief" is unsettling to me. I hope that idea is incorrect. Though I am uncomfortable about being uncertain about certain matters, I don't want to jump to the idea that a god or something else supernatural exists. I prefer to tell myself "I don't know" rather than try to fill in a gap of my knowledge by telling myself "a god exists" and I wish that most other people adopted that same attitude.
If I had never been raised to believe in the god concept I would never have believed in it, despite living in a culture which is permeated with belief in the god concept. I was born with the natural tendency to not believe in god, nor in any other concepts of spirits. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is a Christian and despite what he believes, I do NOT believe at all "... that our ability to understand the world around us accurately implies intention behind the process that has given us life."
I notice that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga says Plantinga has the following ideas. 'Plantinga has also argued that there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good God. ... Plantinga's argument (in a truncated form) states that "It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures." ' I think that each of those ideas of Plantinga are incorrect! I notice that the Wikipedia article says the following which agrees with my view regarding the above stated ideas of Plantinga.
'However, the argument's handling of natural evil has been disputed. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the argument also "conflicts with important theistic doctrines" such as the notion of a heaven where free saved souls reside without doing evil, and the idea that God has free will yet is wholly good. Critics thus maintain that, if we take such doctrines to be (as Christians usually have), God could have created free creatures that always do right, contra Plantinga's claim.[41] J. L. Mackie saw Plantinga's free-will defense as incoherent.'
Regarding the number of tenths of astronomical units between planets in our solar system, I don't see that as implying the existence of an creator being, since I suspect that the measurements given are simply rounded to the nearest tenth of an astronomical unit.
-
30
What really is UN doing with religions?
by Kosonen inoccult un forces seek to hijack religion for globalism.
https://thenewamerican.com/occult-un-forces-seek-to-hijack-religion-for-globalism/it does not look like religions dominate un but the other way around.
journalist alex newman gives a totally different picture about the real state of affairs.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
The article at https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2022/12/31/atheist-ireland-granted-special-un-status-in-bid-to-promote-secular-government/ is very interesting. It is called "Atheist Ireland granted special UN status in bid to promote ‘secular government’: Irish organisation is believed to be the first national atheist campaign group to gain such status". It says the following.
'Atheist Ireland has been granted special consultative status at the United Nations in what is believed to be a first for a national campaign group of its type.
“It means we can engage with the UN Economic and Social Council, Human Rights Council, General Assembly, and Secretariat, in order to advance our aims,” said the group’s chair Michael Nugent and human rights officer Jane Donnelly in a joint statement.
... Atheist Ireland was founded in November 2008 to to promote secularism, rationality, pluralism and human rights in Ireland. It advocates for atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism, and an ethical, secular society where the State does not support or finance or give special treatment to any religion.'
-
349
Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?
by Godlyman inif anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vanderhove7 (and others): In the verse who or what is the household and what is the food?
If " the faithful and wise servant" "is every Christian to whom Jesus will say, “Well done my good and faithful servant!” at his parousia", then who are the servants whom "the faithful and wise servant" has been in put in charge of? Are the other servants (the ones at the receiving end instead of being the ones in charge) also Christians? If not, who are they?
Is the household each congregation of Christians (in the sense of the people who congregated together) or some congregations of Christians (in the sense of the people who congregated together)?
Is the food scriptural statements (such as explanations of scripture) made to people, whether done vocally or in writing? Is it the reading out loud of the scriptures to others? Is the food literal food which is fed to people hungry for literal food to feed their literal tummies?
-
20
drinking wine in the Kingdom
by enoughisenough insomething jumped out at me that i never paid attention to while reading further into matt 26...in vs 28, he tells them his blood is to be poured out for the many for forgiveness of sin.
but note vs 29 but i say to you: i will no menas drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
cross reference luke 22:18 for i tell you , from now on, i will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god comes.. what is the point of all of this: matt 26:29 " i drink it new with you " mark 14:25 " drink new in the kingdom of god.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Personally I strongly dislike when the grapes I buy from the store (or obtain for free) end up fermenting. They taste nasty to me after if I taste any alcohol or vinegar or mold in them. The same goes for all the other fruit I eat.
-
29
New poll shows public knows Jehovah's Witnesses and dislike them....almost as much as the Church of Satan
by Balaamsass2 inwow.
while not a pew survey, i found these to be surprising results.
" a recent yougov poll explores americans' attitudes toward 35 religious groups, organizations, and belief systems.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
slimboyfat I visited a Unitarian congregation at least once many years ago, but like all the other churches I visited, I didn't get much benefit from visiting them during their worship service (nor their after service fellowship). I wish to know what you like about attending the Unitarian church. Please tell me the benefits you get from it.
-
20
drinking wine in the Kingdom
by enoughisenough insomething jumped out at me that i never paid attention to while reading further into matt 26...in vs 28, he tells them his blood is to be poured out for the many for forgiveness of sin.
but note vs 29 but i say to you: i will no menas drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
cross reference luke 22:18 for i tell you , from now on, i will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god comes.. what is the point of all of this: matt 26:29 " i drink it new with you " mark 14:25 " drink new in the kingdom of god.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
enoughisenough, I am highly convinced that the the gospel accounts named after Mark and Matthew (and possibly also the one named after Luke) indicate that according the words they attribute to Jesus, the kingdom of God (also called kingdom of heaven) will be on the Earth during the resign of Jesus the Messiah. I am convinced that according to those gospels Jesus is claimed to say that the 12 apostles (even Judas) will be with Jesus on the Earth while in the kingdom of God/heaven. As a result I understand the verses to be saying that the drinking of the fruit of the vine by Jesus Christ will be on/upon the Earth - not in heaven. In different forum topic I made those points, but I have a copy of what I posted and thus I include them in this post below.
=======================
"John 3:3, 5, and 7 are very important verses, if hypothetically speaking the Bible is true. JWs who want to be in the kingdom of God, even if as earthly subjects of the kingdom, should very carefully think about those verses. Those verses are saying that in order to enter into the kingdom of God people must become "born again" and/or "born from above" (the latter being an alternate translation) and be born from spirit.
By the way when the gospel of Matthew says the "kingdom of heaven" instead of the "kingdom of god" it isn't saying the kingdom is only in heaven. It is using a substitute word for "God" because that gospel book is written for a Jewish audience - including Jews were were cautious about often using even the title/name "God". The Gospel writer might also be saying "kingdom of heaven" to convey the idea that the kingdom receives its authority from heaven (that is, from God in heaven).
If JWs were to realize that the Christian Greek Scriptures is speaking to all Christians and all prospective Christians when it talks about being "born again"/"born from above", "born from spirit", being part of the new covenant, and being sons/daughters of God, then it would likely make reading the Christian Greek Scripture impart a much greater emotional impact to them. At least that perspective has such an effect upon me when I (despite being an atheist ex-JW) read it from that perspective while imagining that the Christian Greek Scriptures is true!
From the point of view of the NT being true, the WT is doing a tremendous disservice to JWs (and prospective JWs) when it teaches that only a literal 144,000 humans become part of the new covenant!"==============
"In page 6 of this topic thread some said that all true Christians go to heaven and some say that some (but not all) true Christians go to heaven. Indeed there are scriptures (such as in some of Paul's letters) which say all true Christians will go to heaven and be there for at least a time, but some verses say (or imply) they will return to Earth after the 1,000 years.
However there are scriptures which say that all true Christians will rule on Earth. Furthermore, as I pointed out in a post on page 5 of this topic thread, the NT scholar Bart Ehrman pointed out (see https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says ) that Jesus taught that the kingdom would be on Earth and that he did not teach that believers in him would go to heaven.
The Bible's book called "Daniel' in chapter 2 relates a purported vision (which the book says is prophetic) depicting a stone from heaven smashing a statue which is upon planet Earth. In the purported vision the stone grows to become a large mountain which filled the whole Earth (Daniel 2;35). Notice that it does not say the mountain is in heaven, but rather it says it is on the Earth. Tthough by saying the stone came out heaven, the account says the kingdom represented by the mountain gets its authority from the God of heaven, and such is stated in Daniel 2:44-45.
The Bible's book called "According to Matthew" says that Jesus said that his 12 apostles (including Judas?) will sit sit upon 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). The book also says that in the kingdom people will come from the east and the west, and thus from various places of the Earth to dine (or recline, such as at table) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11). [That understanding of it being on Earth is more clearly expressed in the NLT which says "will come from all over the world and sit down with ...".] Those two verses when combined show that according to the book called "According to Matthew" Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven would be on the Earth.
Revelation 1:6 says that Christ made Christians "to be a kingdom". Most of the modern translations (making use of better manuscripts that those used as a basis for the KJV) in English say 'kingdom" instead of "kings" (though the KJV and NKJV say "kings", the NKJV translators' note says "NU, M a kingdom"). Revelation 5:10 in a number of modern translations say the Christians are to rule on (not simply over) the Earth and even the KJV says that. At Revelation 5:10 the KJV, the 1984 NIV, the TNIV, the NKJV, and the NLT say "on the earth". The RSV, the NRSV, and the REB say "on earth". The RV, the ARV (namely the "American Revised Version, released in 1898 by Oxford and Cambridge), the ASV, the 1977 NASB, and the NASB Updated say "upon the earth". Even the WT's Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) in its interlinear word for word literal translation says "upon the earth".
These observations when I was a Christian doing independent research of the Bible was a big figurative eye opener to me and revealed to me that according to the Bible Christians would be ruling on the Earth, at least after the 1,000 years, even if prior to that they spend some time in heaven (such as during the battle of Armageddon and perhaps during the 1,000 years). It came to be another reason why I (while still a Christian) concluded that the JW religion is much out of harmony with the Bible, and that the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) and the Church of God (Seventh Day) are the two Christian religions which are the closest to the Bible's teachings. See https://www.guthriegrove.church/our-beliefs which says the following "Jesus will return to the earth literally, visibly and personally to raise the dead in Christ and to change the living saints to immortality .... At Jesus’ second coming the Kingdom of God will be set up as a literal everlasting kingdom throughout the entire earth with Christ as king and his immortalized saints as co-rulers with him ...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_General_Conference says that the church's teachings "... include belief in ... the literal premillennial second coming of Jesus Christ, those who have accepted the gospel will be resurrected at the return of Christ, and promises of God to Abraham will be literally fulfilled, referred to as the "Kingdom of God" being established on Earth." http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/Summit/SecondComing.html says the following. "Satan then will be bound for 1,000 years and Jesus will set up His kingdom on the earth. The saints will reign with Him, during this period, on the earth." https://www.cog7denver.org/statement-of-faith.html says of Jesus that "He reigns as Lord in heaven and will return to earth as judge and king." The web page also says the church teaches "... the imminent return of Christ and the eventual establishment of God’s eternal kingdom on earth." The web page also says the following. "Jesus will return to earth in power and glory to resurrect the righteous dead, bestow immortality and eternal life upon the resurrected and the living righteous, avenge the saints, and be glorified in them. His earthly reign of one thousand years will be a universal kingdom in which all principalities, powers, and enemies are overcome."
Though the 1984 NWT in Revelation 5:10 says "over the earth" that is likely to support their doctrinal view that the 144,000 and Christ will rule in heaven. And while some other Bibles (such as the Bible edited/translated by Goodspeed and Smith, called The Complete Bible: An American Translation) also say "over the earth" that wording does necessarily mean that the ruling is said to be not on the Earth. It doesn't necessarily mean above the Earth (like in the sky in a spiritual heaven). For example, people often speak of kings, presidents, and other humans located on Earth as ruling over parts of the Earth, such as ruling over the USA. They don't mean those people are ruling in heaven.""I think the most reliable extant sources of what Jesus taught about the kingdom of God the gospel books called "According to Mark" and "According to Matthew". The message is that the kingdom of God is as follows. It is near, very near, even at hand (Mark 1:1, 4-5, 14-15; Matthew 3:1-2, 7-12), and that the kingdom is the god's rule on the Earth (at least over Judea) through the messianic son of man. The son of man would rule on Earth. In order to enter the kingdom and receive its blessings people would have to obey the god's laws and seek righteousness, including loving one's neighbor as oneself, and by striving hard to get into the kingdom (Matthew chapters 5 through 7; 18:7-9). Jesus' message about the kingdom was an apocalyptic one (Matthew 13:1-52; 16:27-28; chapters 24-25). The existing political systems and the existing economic systems would be overturned by the kingdom. Many of the poor and of the oppressed would become blessed (Matthew 9:35-38) and most of the rich would suffer and fail to enter the kingdom (Matthew 19:23-24). Those existing in slavery would be released from bondage. Those who worshiped the god properly would be cured of infirmities and of diseases and would receive long life (Matthew 4:23; 10:7-8; 11:2-6; 14:14; 15:30-39). The dead would be raised to life (Matthew 10:8; 27:51-53). The resurrected righteous dead would be greatly rewarded and the resurrected unrighteous dead would be judged and receive contempt (John 5:28-29; Daniel 12:2; John 11:24).
Reading what H.G. Wells' said about Jesus in Wells' two volume book called The Outline Of History: Being A Palin History Of Life And Mankind (but note the subtitle on the cover of the book is "The Whole Story Of Man") contributed to me once again believing that Jesus was a historical person. [The edition I read is the final revised edition, revised by Raymond Postgate and G. P. Wells, bearing the copyright date of 1971.] That is because I saw how his apocalyptic message, including a number of hard sayings for those who were prosperous, indicate that Jesus of Galilee must have existed as the founder (or probably a co-founder along with John the baptist/baptizer) of the Nazarene movement within Judaism which later evolved (largely due to Saul/Paul of Tarsus) into what became known as Christianity.
The apocalyptic message of Jesus failed to come true (other than the destruction of Jerusalem). The kingdom of the god did not become established upon Earth throughout the Earth, nor even upon Judea.
Page 445 of Wells' book says the following.
"....remarkable is the enormous prominence given by Jesus to the teaching of what he called the Kingdom of Heaven, and its comparative insignificance in the procedure and teaching of most of the Christian churches.
This doctrine of the Kingdom Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, and which plays so small a part in the Christian creeds, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought.
... For the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus seems to have preached it, was no less than a bold and uncompromising demand for a complete change and cleansing of the life of our struggling race, an utter cleansing without and within."..."
=============
"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: ßas??e?a t?? ???a???) is a phrase used in the Gospel of Matthew. It is generally seen as equivalent to the phrase "kingdom of God" (Greek: ßas??e?a t?? ?e??) 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 ton Ouranon" (?as??e?a t?? ???a???) 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." ' "============
"I think the most reliable extant sources of what Jesus taught about the kingdom of God the gospel books called "According to Mark" and "According to Matthew". The message is that the kingdom of God is as follows. It is near, very near, even at hand (Mark 1:1, 4-5, 14-15; Matthew 3:1-2, 7-12), and that the kingdom is the god's rule on the Earth (at least over Judea) through the messianic son of man. The son of man would rule on Earth. In order to enter the kingdom and receive its blessings people would have to obey the god's laws and seek righteousness, including loving one's neighbor as oneself, and by striving hard to get into the kingdom (Matthew chapters 5 through 7; 18:7-9). Jesus' message about the kingdom was an apocalyptic one (Matthew 13:1-52; 16:27-28; chapters 24-25). The existing political systems and the existing economic systems would be overturned by the kingdom. Many of the poor and of the oppressed would become blessed (Matthew 9:35-38) and most of the rich would suffer and fail to enter the kingdom (Matthew 19:23-24). Those existing in slavery would be released from bondage. Those who worshiped the god properly would be cured of infirmities and of diseases and would receive long life (Matthew 4:23; 10:7-8; 11:2-6; 14:14; 15:30-39). The dead would be raised to life (Matthew 10:8; 27:51-53). The resurrected righteous dead would be greatly rewarded and the resurrected unrighteous dead would be judged and receive contempt (John 5:28-29; Daniel 12:2; John 11:24).
Reading what H.G. Wells' said about Jesus in Wells' two volume book called The Outline Of History: Being A Palin History Of Life And Mankind (but note the subtitle on the cover of the book is "The Whole Story Of Man") contributed to me once again believing that Jesus was a historical person. [The edition I read is the final revised edition, revised by Raymond Postgate and G. P. Wells, bearing the copyright date of 1971.] That is because I saw how his apocalyptic message, including a number of hard sayings for those who were prosperous, indicate that Jesus of Galilee must have existed as the founder (or probably a co-founder along with John the baptist/baptizer) of the Nazarene movement within Judaism which later evolved (largely due to Saul/Paul of Tarsus) into what became known as Christianity.
The apocalyptic message of Jesus failed to come true (other than the destruction of Jerusalem). The kingdom of the god did not become established upon Earth throughout the Earth, nor even upon Judea.
Page 445 of Wells' book says the following.
"....remarkable is the enormous prominence given by Jesus to the teaching of what he called the Kingdom of Heaven, and its comparative insignificance in the procedure and teaching of most of the Christian churches.
This doctrine of the Kingdom Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, and which plays so small a part in the Christian creeds, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought.
... For the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus seems to have preached it, was no less than a bold and uncompromising demand for a complete change and cleansing of the life of our struggling race, an utter cleansing without and within."..."
=============
"In considering this topic thread it is important to realize that the NT gospels embellish what Jesus said. They incorporate ideas about Jesus which Jesus did not hold about himself. This is brought out at https://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/did_jesus_think_he_was_god_new_insights_on_jesus_own_self_image/ which is an except from Bart Ehrman's book called How Jesus Became God.
In the except Ehrman says that though the historical Jesus taught about the Son of Man, Jesus did not consider himself the Son of Man, nor did Jesus consider himself God. Ehrman says the message of Jesus was about the coming of the kingdom of God, and that Jesus never publicly (except when he was on trail before Pilate) said he would be the king (though Jesus had privately told his apostles that he would be king). I think that Ehrman is correct about this. [H. G. Wells got some of this right in his book called The Outline Of History, but Wells didn't conclude that Jesus taught an apocalyptic message, and Wells seemed to believe Jesus taught the kingdom would only exist within people and only be manifested by their actions.] As a result, the WT's emphasis on Jehovah God and his kingdom (with the kingdom having an administration on Earth which benefits human subjects) is much closer to what the historical Jesus taught than what virtually all of the Christian religions teach. [However, it is very improper for the governing body of the JW to elevate themselves and the WT organization so very high. They have no scriptural basis for doing it, nor do they have any basis in the teachings of the historical Jesus for doing so.]
The excerpt of Ehramn's book says, in part, the following.
'According to our accounts, the trial of Jesus before Pilate was short and to the point. Pilate asked him whether it was true that he was the king of the Jews. Almost certainly, this was the actual charge leveled against Jesus. It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26). Moreover, it is not a charge that Christians would have invented for Jesus—for a possibly unexpected reason. Even though Christians came to understand Jesus to be the messiah, they never ever, from what we can tell, applied to him the title “king of the Jews.” If Christians were to invent a charge to put on Pilate’s lips, it would be, “Are you the messiah?” But that’s not how it works in the Gospels. The charge is specifically that he called himself “king of the Jews.”
Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he were in fact calling himself this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he meant no trouble and that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews, and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.
The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the king of the Jews was precisely that he did call himself the king of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense: when the kingdom arrived, he would be made the king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state.
... The evidence for Jesus’s claims to be divine comes only from the last of the New Testament Gospels, not from any earlier sources.
Someone may argue that there are other reasons, apart from explicit divine self-claims, to suspect that Jesus saw himself as divine. For example, he does amazing miracles that surely only a divine figure could do; and he forgives people’s sins, which surely is a prerogative of God alone; and he receives worship, as people bow down before him, which surely indicates that he welcomes divine honors.
There are two points to stress about such things. The first is that all of them are compatible with human, not just divine, authority. In the Hebrew Bible the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles—including healing the sick and raising the dead—through the power of God, and in the New Testament so did the Apostles Peter and Paul; but that did not make any of them divine. When Jesus forgives sins, he never says “I forgive you,” as God might say, but “your sins are forgiven,” which means that God has forgiven the sins. This prerogative for pronouncing sins forgiven was otherwise reserved for Jewish priests in honor of sacrifices that worshipers made at the temple. Jesus may be claiming a priestly prerogative, but not a divine one. And kings were worshiped—even in the Bible (Matt. 18:26)—by veneration and obeisance, just as God was. Here, Jesus may be accepting the worship due to him as the future king. None of these things is, in and of itself, a clear indication that Jesus is divine.
But even more important, these activities may not even go back to the historical Jesus. Instead, they may be traditions assigned to Jesus by later storytellers in order to heighten his eminence and significance. Recall one of the main points of this chapter: many traditions in the Gospels do not derive from the life of the historical Jesus but represent embellishments made by storytellers who were trying to convert people by convincing them of Jesus’s superiority and to instruct those who were converted. These traditions of Jesus’s eminence cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity and are very likely later pious expansions of the stories told about him—told by people who, after his resurrection, did come to understand that he was, in some sense, divine.
What we can know with relative certainty about Jesus is that his public ministry and proclamation were not focused on his divinity; in fact, they were not about his divinity at all. They were about God. And about the kingdom that God was going to bring. And about the Son of Man who was soon to bring judgment upon the earth. When this happened the wicked would be destroyed and the righteous would be brought into the kingdom—a kingdom in which there would be no more pain, misery, or suffering. The twelve disciples of Jesus would be rulers of this future kingdom, and Jesus would rule over them. Jesus did not declare himself to be God. He believed and taught that he was the future king of the coming kingdom of God, the messiah of God yet to be revealed. This was the message he delivered to his disciples, and in the end, it was the message that got him crucified. It was only afterward, once the disciples believed that their crucified master had been raised from the dead, that they began to think that he must, in some sense, be God.' "===========
"Vanderhoven7, Paul's gospel regarding Jesus Christ might not have been exactly the same as the good news (gospel) taught by Jesus himself (as attributed to Jesus in the gospel books called "According to Mark" and "According to Matthew"). Matthew 24:14 (which was referred to in the opening post of this topic) clearly states that that which is called "this gospel" (or "this good news") is "of the kingdom", namely of what Jesus proclaimed was the very soon coming of the kingdom of God to the Earth under the rule of the Messiah! See Mark 1:14-15 which makes this even more clear - even more obvious!
Likewise the ministry of John the Baptist (as recorded in "According to Mark" [see Mark 1:1-5] and in "According to Matthew" [see Matthew 3:1-2]) was in trying to get the people in Israel ready for that alleged approaching kingdom (which John thought was very near), which included urging people to repent and to get baptized in symbol of their repentance." -
20
drinking wine in the Kingdom
by enoughisenough insomething jumped out at me that i never paid attention to while reading further into matt 26...in vs 28, he tells them his blood is to be poured out for the many for forgiveness of sin.
but note vs 29 but i say to you: i will no menas drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
cross reference luke 22:18 for i tell you , from now on, i will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god comes.. what is the point of all of this: matt 26:29 " i drink it new with you " mark 14:25 " drink new in the kingdom of god.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I am saying that nothing in the words attributed to Jesus about the Memorial specifically say that wine is to be used. As to whether or not fresh grapes and fresh grape juice would have been available during Passover time, I don't know, though I know the WT says such was not available. Regarding the account of Jesus turning water into intoxicating wine for the guests to drink, such is somewhat unsettling to me whenever I think of that account. I don't know what to make that account regarding the wine mentioned as being intoxicating. I have not done much research on that matter, however the https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1965/02/wines-of-the-bible source I provided in my prior post briefly discusses an SDA view about the turning of water into wine and about the meaning of the biblical words which are sometimes translated as "wine". That source also says the following.
'Christ's first miracle at the marriage feast was to produce "good wine" in an emergency. This was the pure juice of the grape.
... The Saviour's final act with His disciples was the institution of the Lord's Supper to take the place of the Passover supper. That the wine used on this occasion was unfermented is established by the fact that during the Passover season leaven and all other things fermented were not to be found in any Hebrew home (Ex. 12:15). It is unthinkable that the wine used to represent His blood (1 Cor. 11:25) would bear the taint of ferment and its cause, which is death. Jesus said to the disciples, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29). The wine used at the Lord's Supper was called the "fruit of the vine." Ferment is a type of sin, and since in Him was no sin, the wine that represents His blood must be without ferment.
... The Septuagint uses the Greek oinos to translate both yayin and tirdsh—the former referring to wine in general, the latter to unintoxicating wine. On the basis of this, careful scholarship should attend the interpretation of those texts where oinos is used, taking cognizance of the context in which the word is found. This alone determines whether oinos should be rendered as an intoxicating beverage or not. Notice the usage of oinos in the following texts: Luke 7:33—"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil." Luke 10:34—"And [the good Samaritan] went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine." John 4:46—"So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine." The word oinos is used in each of the above texts, but obviously different kinds of wine are being set forth.
... The study of the wines of the Bible reveals the fact that for every good thing that God has made, Satan has made a counterfeit. Nowhere in the Scriptures can it be proved that God has put His endorsement on the use of intoxicating wine. He has given man the pure juice of the grape for his enjoyment and benefit. He provided it as a symbol of the spilt blood of Jesus Christ for our sins, and greatest of all, we have the Saviour's promise: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26: 29).'
If I recall correctly, Charles Taze Russell did not alcohol. But his successor, Joseph Rutherford (a drunkard) did. Rutherford published considerable literature through the WT saying it is fine to drink alcoholic drinks. Rutherford resisted the Prohibition amendment to the USA Constitution which prohibited alcoholic drinks. On the matter whose views was more correct - that of Russell or of Rutherford and the successors to Rutherford?
-
20
drinking wine in the Kingdom
by enoughisenough insomething jumped out at me that i never paid attention to while reading further into matt 26...in vs 28, he tells them his blood is to be poured out for the many for forgiveness of sin.
but note vs 29 but i say to you: i will no menas drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
cross reference luke 22:18 for i tell you , from now on, i will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god comes.. what is the point of all of this: matt 26:29 " i drink it new with you " mark 14:25 " drink new in the kingdom of god.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
The verses say "product of the vine" not wine. The product of the vine can simply be unfermented grape juice. Many people read "wine" into the verses, but the verses don't actually say wine. Both unfermented grape juice and wine are products of the vine. For example, the Seventh-day Adventists are forbidden to drink wine and they use unfermented grape juice in their Lord's Supper communion. See https://www.adventist.org/the-lords-supper/ . It says in part the following.
'Wine, or grape juice—Jesus blood
The fruit of the vine symbolizes Jesus’ blood that was shed for us.
“This is My blood of the new covenant,” said Jesus, “which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22, ESV).
As with the bread, Jesus was standing before His disciples when He made the pronouncement, “This is My blood.”
Was the fruit of the vine fermented or unfermented?
Most Seventh-day Adventist Christians believe the fruit of the vine used in the Passover celebration was unfermented grape juice. After partaking of the cup, Jesus said,
“I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29).
Above all, considering the ways fermented wine is often condemned in Scripture, Seventh-day Adventists seek to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice for us with a clear, unclouded mind.
“Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1).
“Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper” (Proverbs 23:31, 32).
“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s delicacies, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8).
Grape juice, freshly squeezed from the vine, is a fitting symbol of the perfect blood of Christ, shed for the redemption of mankind.'
See also https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1965/02/wines-of-the-bible which says in part the following. "The Seventh-day Adventist position on the use of intoxicating beverages has ever been consistent and Biblical. The church has always taken the unequivocal stand that alcoholic drinks are debilitating to body and mind, and hence are not to be used by the child of God, for "if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Cor. 3:17). Not only does the use of such beverages defile body and mind but the result of their continued use makes a person unfit to enter the kingdom of heaven (chapter 6:10). Alcohol is formed by the process of fermentation. Fermentation signifies death, death is the result of sin, hence fermentation is a type of sin."
https://www.adventist.org/official-statements/historic-stand-for-temperance-principles-and-acceptance-of-donations-statement-impacts-social-change/ says the following.
"Historic Stand for Temperance Principles and Acceptance of Donations Statement Impacts Social Change
From the very inception of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, temperance has been a major focus and the Church has played a key role in struggling against the inroads of alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and other drugs. While some Christian denominations have lessened their emphasis on temperance, Seventh-day Adventists have continued to vigorously oppose the use of alcohol, tobacco, and improper drugs. The stand of the Church advocating abstinence from harmful substances is well established in the Church’s fundamental beliefs."
After I became age 21 I tried out wine and other alcoholic drinks on occasion to see if I would like it and to see how my body would feel, and I discovered that I strongly dislike the taste of alcohol (a poison) and I strongly dislike the way alcohol (a poison) makes my body feel. I thus strongly dislike drinking of wine and other alcoholic drinks (lacking unfermented fruit juice). In contrast I enjoy drinking unfermented fruit juices (but now I rarely even drink those because the high sugar content can cause health problems over time). The only times an alcoholic drink tasted good to me was when it was a mixed drink containing unfermented fruit juice mixed in with wine. I also dislike the strong smell of wine (including from meats cooked in wine).
When I observed the Memorial of Jesus Christ by myself (which I did for two years) with me officiating it for myself I bought red grapes from the grocery store and squeezed out the red grape juice and drank it instead of wine, since I did not want any alcohol.