by gumby 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Why did he have to wait untill he was 30 years old before he became Jesus, God's son? Why didn't he do anything of note before that time, which was by far the majority of his life?
How about habits/lifestyle?
If I had to be tortured, not have a home, finally be nailed to timber and die at 33, I don't like that kind of lifestyle.
Ken P.
Why did he have to wait untill he was 30 years old before he became Jesus, God's son? Why didn't he do anything of note before that time, which was by far the majority of his life?
Ken...ya grumpster.....you need more coffee
He had to wait till he was 30 cause that's when the jews recognised ya as a grown man and that's the age for priesthood. If he had started doin his tricks when he was a kid....everyone woulda though he was demunized and woulda thrown rocks at him and stuff......ya knucklehead!
Gumby
I think if Jesus and God were real that they would have alot of explaining to do as well!
I mean the sh*t a$$ excuse that the WT gives, let's just say for a sec is correct, how ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC is that!
The whole world suffers because God's name was maligned? He needs to GET OVER IT!!!!!!
My gawd do you not see how STUPID that sounds??????
The whole world suffers because God's name was maligned?
Nuh uh....ya big silly. He got pissed cuz ma and pa couldn't keep their arses away from that tree .
Gumby!!!!!!!!!
Nuh uh....ya big silly. He got pissed cuz ma and pa couldn't keep their arses away from that tree .
In the begining....but then it was because his name was maligned!
How pathetic is it that EVERYONE suffers for thousands of years because of two people? (If the Bible is correct)
That my friend is not justice! So there for he is NOT a 'Just God'! (If he is real)
How pathetic is it that EVERYONE suffers for thousands of years because of two people?
if the bible says "sons do not answer for the error of their fathers".....how's come we're answerin fer our pa....Adam?
Gumby
Oh my gawd .....I have asked that question to myself for years but I didn't ask the elders for fear of what they would say to me! So can someone here answer that!
I think Jesus was an interesting person, probably somebody I would have enjoyed having a conversation with, but when considered in totality, purely objectively, the teachings and philosophy of Jesus were certainly not original, nor particularly revolutionary. The points raised below outline many of the antecedents of Jesus philosophy, indicating a profound lack of originality in many of his philosophical positions. If you consider the historical man, Jesus, he is a minor player in real development of Western thought since the bulk of his ideas were derived from earlier religions (most obviously Judaism). His impact on the religious history of the west, however, obviously cannot be underestimated. In short, he was a cool dude, but I would rather read Homer, Plato, Socrates or the teachings of the Buddha for my enlightment!
| It is universally admitted...that Christ taught the purest and sublimest of ethics, one which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade. [1] |
There is only one problem with the statement above: it is simply not true!
It is clear that when the glasses of faith are taken off, the ethical teachings of Jesus is neither unique nor sublimely beautiful. As a teacher of ethics Jesus cannot be considered one of the greats. At best, he was an "also-ran".
| Mark 12:31 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 6:14 Matthew 7:12 |
This teaching, while commendable, are not original. We find similar teachings in the Jewish culture of Jesus. Hillel, the famous Jewish preacher had already taught such a doctrine:
| What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow-man: this is the whole law, the rest is commentary. [2] |
We find the same essence in the Old Testament:
| Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself... |
In other cultures too, we find preachers already preaching similar doctrines long before Jesus. The Chinese philosopher, Confucius (551-478 BCE) has this to say in his Analects:
| A young man's duty is to behave well to his parents at home and to his elders abroad, to be cautious in giving promise and punctual in keeping them, to have kindly feelings towards everyone, but seek intimacy of the good. [3] |
In the teaching about love and forgiveness, Jesus has no claim to originality. His teachings here did not set new ground. Even his famous dictum about loving one's enemies is not original for it has both precedents and in the general mileau of first century Hellenistic intellectual culture:
| Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." |
The Old Testament archetype for this teaching can be found in Exodus:
| Exodus 23:4-5 If you meet your enemy's ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up |
Similar parallels are found in the prevalent cynic and stoic philosophies of first century CE:
| Epictetus (fl. circa end of first century CE) "A rather nice part of being a cynic comes when you have to be beaten like an ass, and throughout the beating you have to love those who are beating you as though you were father or brother to them" Diogenes (c412-323 BCE) Seneca (4 BCE -65 CE) |
Another episode normally quoted by those who want to present Jesus as a moral innovator [5] is found in John 8:1-11. Leaving aside any problems of authenticity, even here, Jesus' teaching was not unique or original. The story in the first eleven verses of John tells of a woman who was caught in the act of committing adultery. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that according to the Law she must be stoned. Jesus' answer was:
| John 8:7 "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." |
The idea behind this saying is that since all have sinned, it is more prudent to reflect on one's own fault before hurling condemnations at each other. Again here, Jesus' teaching was not unique. His contemporary, the Roman stoic philosopher, Seneca taught the same thing in his essay On Anger:
| No man of sense will hate erring, otherwise he will hate himself. Let him reflect how many times he offends against morality, how many of his acts stand in need of pardon; then he will be angry with himself also. For no just judge pronounce one sort of judgement in his own case and a different one in the case of others. No one will be found, I say, who is able to acquit himself, and any man who calls himself innocent is thinking more of [the absence of] witnesses than [his own] conscience. How much more human to manifest toward wrong doers a kind and fatherly spirit, not hunting them down, but calling them back! [6] |
There were many thinkers, before and after Jesus who extolled teachings similar to Jesus'. They include, among others Lao Tzu (6th cent BCE), Mencius (4th cent BCE), Epicurus (342-270 BCE) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE). But there is actually a difference between these humanists teachings and Jesus'. To them doing good comes spontaneously to the educated because he understands that man is a social animal. But to Jesus one must do good because the reward is great [7]:
| Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great..." |
| Matthew 6:3-4 "But when you give alms...your Father who sees in secret will reward you." |
| Matthew 5:12 "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven." |
Reward and punishment are primitive ethical concepts. Just as we do not think highly of any man who refrains from committing a crime only because he is afraid of getting caught, we cannot think highly of ethical teachings which promises reward ("Mummy will give you a lollipop if you stop pestering your baby sister") for doing good and punishment ("No more ice cream for you unless you stop crying") for doing evil. This concept, as the examples above show, is one suited for little children and morally maladjusted adults. For this reason, Jesus' ethical teachings are not as complete as the humanists thinkers.
So can someone here answer that!
* whistles and looks at watch twiddling his thumbs waiting for answer* Where the hell is Rex and Schizm when you need em? Gumby
I suspect we're not directly suffering in a physical sense, from what the story of Adam and Eve tells us. I think we were always meant to live and die physically, just like the animals do. I think the story tells us about a spiritual death or disconnection. The result of that might mean that we are more "rudderless" than we might otherwise have been, however we still have a personal and communal responsibility to make things good for ourselves, our families and our community at large.
IMHO we are lords, gods and creators in our own right, in the image of God. I think Jesus gives us a fresh taste of that, and something to strive for.
