by nicolaou 123 Replies latest watchtower bible
You did not show me any incontrovertible proof Cofty... because there are things that Christ said that do not mesh with what you are thinking that means. Things that could not have happened then, and Christ would know THAT. The temple that they asked about was destroyed, and that did happen then. But the time of the end is a separte thing from that.
(and the early 'christians' WERE Jews, Adamah)
Peace,
tammy (I have heard of the Zealot, Comatose, thank you)
Is there nothing of value in Jesus' teachings? If the whole world followed what Jesus had to say on the Sermon on the Mount would the world be worse off? I certainly do not believe the bible is infallible nor do I believe that everything it says comes from a higher power but I would say there is much of value in what Jesus had to say even for us today. And Jesus' words were not directed to us living in the western world in the 21st century. His teachings were very advanced for the average person living in Palestine in the first century. Why must we rip him out of the context in which he preached and judge him according to today's level on consciousness?
There may be people who have done great, unselfish things, had high morals, and taught great lessons that have helped many to increase their consciousness. Would we judge them as evil because they were mistaken on something? Or, would we judge their whole life and everything they taught based on their weaker moments? If so, give me one person that who has ever lived that is praiseworthy.
Well because he is lauded as gods son. If he is gods son, then we all know the bible indicates gods standards do not change. So what Jesus said and taught in his time should still be considered good on today's standards. It shouldn't appear as though Jesus were just a Jew, it should appear that he was the son of god and spoke universal truths.
Now if you are just meaning Jesus was a good man for back then, and taught things that were ahead of the curve as a MAN.... That's pretty reasonable and I agree. But you can't very well say he is gods son and then cut him slack for living two thousand years ago.
Willmarite - Jesus said some interesting things even if he said nothing original.
Millions of people today plan their whole lives around what he supposedly said and await the fulfillment of his failed prophecies. He is worshipped and adored.
Look at the lengths Tammy is prepared to go to deny the obvious.
He was just a man who had delusions of grandeur. If he was alive today we would might be be reading on the internet about his cult following and his outlandish delusional claims.
He isn't any less culpable becasue he lived long ago and far away.
TEC said-
(and the early 'christians' WERE Jews, Adamah)
Not if they symbolically drank blood and ate Jesus' flesh, they weren't Torah-observant faithful Jews: that's a practice right out of pagan beliefs of the day. They were actually apostates, and Jewish Mosaic Law demanded they be killed as such (in fact, that's EXACTLY why Saul/Paul was persecuting early Christians: he was actually following the Torah, doing what it COMMANDED faithful Jews to do in order to keep Judaism free from threats of syncretism by being "blended" with pagan beliefs).
The Eucharist WAS the acid test for his disciples, the point of no return when Jesus broke off from Judaism, since to a Jew, even the thought of symbolically violating the commandment given in the Noahide Covenant of Genesis 9 ("do not eat blood with the flesh") which is said to last FOR ALL TIME; there was no closing out of the Noahide Covenant, no fulfillment. The idea of drinking blood was so abhorrent and violative of God's laws found in the Torah there was no turning back then. The idea of cannabalism was similarly stomach-churning, and even to engage in it symbolically was abandoning one's Jewish tradition and heritage to become a follower of the spin-off group, the cult of Christ.
The corruption of the Jewish tradition of the Passover Seder is clearly seen in the NT account, and it's unmistakeably points to 'syncretism':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist
tammy (I have heard of the Zealot, Comatose, thank you)
He didn't ask if you've "heard of it", he recommended you READ it.
Adam
Comatose, I think Jesus was God's son the same way you and I are God's children. Jesus' main concern was lifting up the consciousness of 1rst century palestines. Most of what he was recorded as teaching was well above the average person's thinking of that time. We're his teachings the highest possible? No.
Cofty, as you know the gospels were written well after Jesus passed from the earth. The jews were awaiting a Messiah that would come and deliver them. This idea of a divine deliverance could have easily influenced the disciples and gospel writers to misinterpret what Jesus was saying. One of Jesus' teachings was that the kingdom is within us, so perhaps the disciples were misunderstood when they thought Jesus would physically come back for "kingdom" power.
If you find interesting things in Jesus' sayings then ponder over those sayings. If you find other spiritual teachers more comprehensible then it would better to concentrate on their teachings.
I do agree that one shouldn't simply believe everything that Jesus purportedly said or did just because someone wrote it down hundreds of years ago. I think it's important to use a oftentimes neglected skill all humans posess which is intuition.
If you must know what I understand.. though I am not absolutely sure: people took his explanations for different things (when the temple will be destroyed, and the end of the age, and His return)... and merged them into one conversation that does not show the differences/breaks. Perhaps because some of them did not understand... or because the later scribes did not understand.
The temple... that was his body... was torn down, and Christ raised it up. (in their lifetime)
The temple... that was the building.... was also torn down and the romans invaded. (in their lifetime)
The time of the end though... Christ was not speaking of this as happening in their lifetime... and there are many things that had to occur before that time came, that He stated. Those things have not all come yet.
(If people knew what those things were, and knew what some things written in Revelation referred to were, then they would also be able to understand that Christ would have known that the end could NOT have come in that first/second century; so he could not have been speaking as to that, then)
For those of you who normally state that the bible is unreliable because things were written down so many years later... lol... you sure have changed your tune when it seems to you that you have discovered something false.
Peace all,
tammy
The destruction of the temple and the parousia were not separated in time in Jesus' prophecy.
The only bit he got right was that Rome would attack Jerusalem - hardly a surprise. His followers have been inventing increasingly contrived excuses for his failure ever since.
For brevity here is an edited version of Mark 13 which was the source for Matthew's and Luke's gospels. Read the whole chapter online here...
I challenge anybody to claim Jesus did not tell his followers his parousia would happen in their lifetime.
Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.
Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?
Jesus said to them: .. Many will come in my name... wars and rumors of wars.. Nation will rise against nation..earthquakes in various places, and famines.... You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues... the gospel must first be preached to all nations..... Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation...flee to the mountains.... If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.... For false messiahs and false prophets will appear.. So be on your guard;
But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Cofty said-
The only bit he got right was that Rome would attack Jerusalem - hardly a surprise. His followers have been inventing increasingly contrived excuses for his failure ever since.
And as Bart Ehrman and many other NT scholars have pointed out, it's trivial for Jesus to "prophecy" such destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70CE when textual analysis of the Greek words used indicates they were inserted into Jesus' mouth AFTER the event had actually happened, since those accounts were written after the "prophecied" event had already occurred.
Anyone who wants to know more about the issue owes it to themselves to read Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus". Anyone who doesn't care if what they believe is actually true or not (eg TEC) probably shouldn't bother.
TEC Said-
For those of you who normally state that the bible is unreliable because things were written down so many years later... lol... you sure have changed your tune when it seems to you that you have discovered something false.
Strawman much?
It's easy to write a "prophecy" AFTER the event happened, and script Jesus as saying words that would force the prophecy to be true, having been written after the fact.
That has NOTHING to do with say, Paul misunderstanding of the allegorical story of Cain vs Abel, which specifically was designed to demonstrate how manslaughter should be handled (vs murder), when that real meaning had gotten lost in the sands of time (and due to the stubborn refusal to see the account as anything BUT murder, an interpretation adopted by Christianity). That's exactly the subject I wrote about on my blog article on why God seemingly let Cain get away with murder.
Adam
I think this thread demonstrates the divide between faith-based and evidence-based thinking.
One starts with a belief and forces reality to fit the pre-conceived conclusion. The other considers the evidence and arrives at a provisional conclusion.
