Now in Audio Book form: Shutting the Door to the Kingdom of God: How Watch Tower Stole Salvation from Jehovah’s Witnesses

Comment by rusticshore on 2023-04-27 09:39:29

Wonderful.

I had no intention of responding to this post, until I read the last two paragraphs.

I am currently working on my third book, the first was on the Trinity doctrine and the second on the JW organization.

This book, (a treatise) will be focused on identifying a large chasm that exists between Christianity and being "Christ-like." My treatise ("Conciliatory") will focus on three main argumentation - Biblical, Historical, and Philosophical.

As a previous JW of some 45 years, I observed many of whom we dare believe exemplify the true meaning of "Christian." I have learned that there are many throughout the world who claim to be Christian, yet are not Christ-like. And I have found untold numbers who truly are Christ-like, yet have no affiliation with Christianity.

I aim to identify a fundamental flaw when it comes to this matter, and focus on what the underlying import of the historical Jesus' message was that he was trying to get across.

It's easy to say, "It was about the kingdom of God" (Luke 4:43).
Yet, there exists a significant flaw in how most Christians view Jesus message. -- What was the significance of using the Samaritan as being good? What was the deeper meaning? What was the critical message Jesus gave to the woman at the well? What did he say to her that goes deeper than most think? And a host of other critical topics.

In the end I aim to establish a definitive conclusion to what REALLY exists as one of the most important questions of all... "Need one be a "Christian" to have salvation? I no longer believe that to be the case. Must one be Christ-like to have salvation? I believe so. Are the two symbiotically and unequivocably linked? Or falsely linked?

My goal is to have the book ready for print early 2024. Will see how that develops.

• Reply by Vintage on 2023-04-28 19:20:55

  Hi rusticshore. I understand “Christian” to mean “follower of Christ”. Is that your understanding of the word “Christian”?

  • Reply by Ad_Lang on 2023-04-29 14:00:25

    I think he is referring to people calling themselves Christian. For example, I can call myself Christian, but that doesn't mean I am. Being Christ-like makes one a Christian. If I'm not Christ-like, calling myself Christian would be deceptive.
    
    Sadly, there are many who label themselves "Christian", but go about their daily lives in a very un-christian way. We all are guilty of that to some degree, but I am referring to people who display a clear contrast. Think of someone who goes to church every week at least once, has a very judgmental attitude toward others, but is never heard to apologise for anything (as they seem to believe they never do anything wrong themselves, or will never admit to any wrongdoing even if proclaiming they are imperfect too).

  • Reply by rusticshore on 2023-05-01 08:45:44

    My argument is not about the definition of "Christian," respectively. The argument is, must one need to identify as "Christian" to have salvation?
    I believe that one may call on the "name" (Grk "Onoma" - see "Ginosko") of our Father, and the son by living a life our Father expects... without identifying as "Christian."
    The arguments will be definitive and anything but terse.
    
    Just as we all once believed that identifying as a "JW" was essential for salvation, I intend to prove through my treatise that one may have salvation without claiming to be Christian.

    • Reply by Vintage on 2023-05-01 09:14:22

      Rusticshore, Do you agree that a Christian is a follower of Christ?

• Reply by Ad_Lang on 2023-04-29 14:07:09

  I think one will have to acknowledge Jesus' authority by free will at some point to avoid adverse judgment. It is true that Romans 2 speaks of people who by nature do the things of the Law, so that their conscience may even excuse them, but the message is unmistakably clear about Jesus being the only way to the Father.
  
  There is a reason why, in Revelation, people who share in the first resurrection are declared happy. Maybe many reasons. We're only given the conclusion of something that we haven't seen and do not know, let alone understand. I think the question for us is whether we believe the one who makes that statement.

  • Reply by rusticshore on 2023-05-01 08:50:35

    I do not believe that to be the case any longer. This will be definitvely covered in the treatise.

  • Reply by rusticshore on 2023-05-01 09:32:29

    As it pertains to Revelation - I will be covering that topic in deep... with sources. I no longer believe Revelation should have been canonized. The Jesus we find in Revation is not the same Jesus we find elsewhere in the gospels. For instance, early on when the 5th seal is broken and those martyred are symbolically shown beneath a tomb ...they cry out to Jesus for revenge. Jesus assures them that those who killed them will themselves be destroyed.
    This narrative vastly changes from the man we get in the gospels. Not to mention the irreverance of those martyred to make such a request.
    
    I will be covering the writer form of literary trope, and the overall sense of anger he has at Rome, using apocalyptic prose as a tool to shoot back at the Roman authorities... the city officials who exists in the mind of the writer as a "harlot" sitting upon this beast (Rome) that sits on seven hills ("heads"). With that, I do not claim to be a preterist.
    
    I will be covering the grammatical construct of Revelation and the huge differences between the writer (possibly John of Patmos) and the writer of the gospel and epistle of John. I will be pointing out Augustine's treatise of the grammtical construct of Revelation and how modern scholars agree with Augustine's finding on every point. It is a grammatical conundrum in its written form.
    
    In addition, I will be revealing facts of "how" Revelation got admitted... only through something stated in Rev 22 when Jesus (allegedly) stated "I am the Alpha and Omega." If not for that, Revelation did NOT meet the criterions for being canonized. I will present the sources... as expected.
    I believe the should have ended with Jude.

    • Reply by xrt469 on 2023-05-01 12:33:49

      If God has not been able to deliver to his servants a reasonably accurate representation of his inspired word, to paraphrase Paul from 1 Cor. 15:19, "we’re the most pitiable of all men"!

      • Reply by rusticshore on 2023-05-01 13:33:31

        I gave thumbs up on your reply. However, I am certain Paul was not speaking of written material, narratives, or even books that was willfully written and/or admitted into the canon that shouldn't have been.
        
        For example, most all are familiar with the adulterous woman narrative of John 7:53 - John 8:11, where Jesus invited those without sin to cast the first stone.
        
        That narrative has been omitted from almost all modern translations, including the NWT. Why? Our earliest manscripts do not have the narrative. Hence, a scribe willfully inserted it during the copying process. Textual critics have identified a vast sum of textual variants, mainly minor, but also critical.
        
        The question is, can we overcome the denial when we see gradual improvements made to the bible? If Revelation should not have been canonized, then we should be moved with joy that the text is removed (should that eventually happen), representing a more accurate reflection of what was originally in the extant manscripts, and identify the counterfeit portions.