Why do they assume they were anointed? (page 2)

Apognophos

Hmm, to try to answer your actual question, Sheep2slaughter... :)

I think it's because the scriptures that were interpreted as referring to going to heaven, getting crowns, and ruling as kings, spun by the WT into the "144,000" class, were written by Paul to early Christian congregations. Paul was clearly addressing everyone, not just the ones in the congregations who had some sort of special calling. Also, because the holy spirit anointed all 120 in the upper room at Pentecost 33 C.E. Therefore the logical (?) assumption was that all early Christians must have been anointed. A sort of first-come, first-serve approach to getting holy spirit.

wha happened?

The so called 'annointed'(R) people I knew when I was in the disgusting WBT$ cult were mostly oddballs. Sorry to be so brutal but that's how it seemed.

Isn't that the truth. With all the annopinted I met, only one sounded and acted like a normal human being. Everyone else I met were coo coo for cocoa puffs

tec

They have to assume that, because there is no evidence anywhere, that there were two classes of Christians. As Apoghophos said above, Paul did not address some and not others. There was no memorial where some partook and not others, or you would assume that there would be instructions regarding such. But there are no such instructions because that two tier class system among christians is a lie. Then, and now.

All Christians are annointed... with the holy spirit that Christ gives.

Not all who call themselves christians, however, are christians.

Peace,

tammy

leaving_quietly

Apognophos is spot on.

Blondie is also right, especially 1 Cor 11:20-34. They did partake after the initial meal Jesus had. The thrust here is about not partaking unworthily, and from verses 20 - 22 it shows what that is: hungry or intoxicated. In other words, don't come to the Lord's evening meal expecting to get a full meal to fill your belly, and certainly don't come drunk. Verses 27 - 30 are not about scrutinizing whether one is anointed or not, but really, whether one is giving due honor to the reason for the occasion. I'm not sure how else to word this.

wha happened?

Yep, just another made up doctrine that is getting a real run for it's money now.

So that means that Ray Franz was in fact part of the annointed as he was serving in a capacity in New York, dispensing food to the sheep.

prologos

This question was also answered wrongly , because of their, (WT BtS) mistaken idea that The natural Israelites under the Law covenant were supposed to be ALL Kings, ( a kingdom of priests ) and the New covenant meant that all true and only Christians were to be ALL Kings with Christ.

They did not understand the difference between the NEW and the KINGDOM covenant.

They did not understand the difference between "being with the lord" and salvation.

they did not understand there was no talking snake.no original sin.

Bobcat

Sheep2S and Wholly:

Below are some links to Bible research on the topic of being anointed which I think you will find interesting. As some have already pointed out, there is a clear difference between what the WT says about the subject and what the NT says.

The NT evidence is quite clear. It did not take me long to put together the material posted below. So I personally find it hard to believe that it is simply a failure to do the research on the part of the WT. And since they put themselves in the position of THE one you have to recognize in order to gain life, they also obligate themselves to present the matter correctly, which they are clearly not doing. IMO, they appear to use the topic in such a way as to consolidate their religious power over others.

See my post 474 and 475 on this thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/244314/1/What-scripture-was-it-that-let-an-average-joe-know-that-they-were-annointed

And here is further research on the topic of "anointed Christians":

Here, and here (see my posts 384 and 385 for numerous sub-links on the subject)

Incidentally, the Society likes using 1 Cor 11:28 (cited above in some posts) to scare people into not partaking of the emblems. But notice what the verse says (quoted below). The subject IS NOT about whether one should partake or not. The subject IS about partaking worthily, that is, recognizing and acting according to the meaning of the symbols. According to verse 28, after a person scrutinizes (and corrects) himself, he is to do what Jesus said to do, namely, partake of the emblems.

(1 Corinthians 11:27, 28 NWT) . . .Consequently whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 First let a man approve himself after scrutiny, and thus let him eat of the loaf and drink of the cup.

And since the great crowd was mentioned above, here is further research on the topic as it relates to their being anointed and part of the new covenant. (See my posts #619 and 622.)

Take Care

Pterist

As mentioned some time ago by someone, there were 13 at the "NEW" covenant Passover, only ONE was annointed.

They all ate the bread in the wilderness even the alien resident, regardless of their position under Moses.

Shalom

blondie

Very true, Pterist, the apostles did not receive the spirit until Pentecost.

Bob_NC

Let's suppose for the sake of conversation that CT and the Rutherford are correct and that there is a first-fruit "class" of 144,000 that go (went already) to heaven. Let's start the count with the first 12, then the 120, then the 500 and then all the congreagtions that sprang up due to the Apostle Paul and so forth. How long do you think it would take to get to 144,000 Christians? 10 years? 20 years? Hundreds of thousands died for their faith before the 1200s!

Where does CT and Rutherford come into the picture? Johnny-come-latelys for sure. Late by hundreds of years. They weren't even close in being among the first 144,000 Christians, not even the first 500,000.

Bob in NC

Why do they assume they were anointed?

Share this