Undenying Jesus the man, son of Joseph & Mary - not begotten of God

by hallelujah 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hallelujah

  In my disassociation letter I said I deny Jesus. Of course I over-reacted - I do not deny Jesus the man, in fact I undeny him. But I do deny what I consider to be the fraudulent writings about him in the bible. How can the two be reconciled when the evidence of Jesus existence is effectively the Bible? Well I consider that there must be some factual existence underlying the Gospels, i.e. that a man, Jesus preached to do good to others and was crucified for challenging authority. In that I stand for Jesus. However I do also believe that his story has been made into a composite God man by later writings, such as the imputation of virgin birth, rising from the dead, rising to heaven (which is widely assumed to mean flying physically upwards into the sky), asking everyone to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Who is to know what was said and what was later imputed to him by fraudulent writers. I have no right to deny him (if he existed as a man).
• 

  disowned&alone

  Hi There Hallelujah.

  Congrats on breaking those chains!! I read your DA statement, and I applaud the fact that you are attempting to encourage the dubs to think...not an easy task!

  I wanted to take a moment to direct your attention towards Islam. Islam does not believe that Jesus was a deity, but instead that he was a prophet. Although Muslims believe that the bible was inspired of God, we also believe that it has been tainted by man over the years.

  Muslims also do not believe in the original sin. Our flawed legal system would not allow a son to pay for the crimes of his father...how could we imagine that God, the most just being in the universe, would expect each baby to be tainted with sin and have to work off someone else's condemnation? Just a thought.

  I wish you a world of luck...oh and not the Satanic sort.

  Diana (of the not gnashing my teeth class)
• 

  hallelujah

  Thank you Dianna

  Yes my DA letter actually shot from the hip. I am glad that Islam does not believe in original sin.

  I do not wish to offend. Really I made the statement concerning Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because all three were based, it seems to me, on the Yahweh of the bible. I was also struck by the following apparent translation of a section from the Quran from Joseph Wheless "Is it God's Word" and would appreciate if you can tell me whether this is actually in the Quran and if so an accurate translation of the Arabic;

  IS IT GOD'S WORD? 397
  
  "Verily, those who disbelieve our signs, we will surely cast to be broiled in hell fire; so often as
  their skins shall be well burned, we will give them other skins in exchange, that they may taste the sharper torment; for Allah is mighty and wise" (Sutra iv)! [sic, sura]

  This to me, if it is in the Quran, would appear to be wholly superflous. Actually I think that Christianity and Islam grafted onto the Hebrew scriptures Indian religious philosophies of after life in it's various manifestations of re-incarnation (Hindu) or alternatively rebirth (Buddhist) in the various upper or lower planes of existence, humankind allegedly forming the middle plane.

  It was the hell doctrine quoted here by Wheless which led me to call Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, cults of devilry. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
• 

  Narkissos

  Well I consider that there must be some factual existence underlying the Gospels, i.e. that a man, Jesus preached to do good to others and was crucified for challenging authority.

  It's a distinct possibility, and a respectable opinion. But it can hardly be more than that because...

  Who is to know what was said and what was later imputed to him by fraudulent writers. I have no right to deny him (if he existed as a man).

  I would not suscribe to the qualifier "fraudulent" because I don't think any of the NT writers was deliberately trying to deceive anybody. What they wrote was an expression of their honest belief, which by the literary standards of their time could be put in the form of a story. If in time it happened to be mistaken as history -- and then criticised as such -- it is our problem more than theirs
• 

  Terry

  The easiest way for me to think about Jesus is to think about Elvis.

  I kid you not!

  Think of all the Elvis sightings after his death.
• 

  hallelujah

  Thanks Nark and Terry

  I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there is no such thing as Christ, rather a collection of writings (scriptures) commonly called the New Testament. But surely Nark by the time the New Testament was being put together and the final touches and additions, subtractions, obliterations and alterations made, they would have known that it had moved beyond story into the realm of dogma and "truth"? It is in this sense that I use the word "fraudulent", especially since the process has been ongoing and accelerated through the translations into English, etcetera. Probably the fact of writing was itself so awesome for wholly illiterate peoples that "for it is written" assumed a meaning which would should not prevail today.
• 

  tmo1965

  When one considers all of the evidence, there is no doubt that Jesus existed and did perform the miracles that are attributed to HIm. Just looking at the 4 Gospels, we have 4 different people who experienced the same first hand events and wrote about them separately after a number of years, and they remarkably tell the same story.

  Studying the writings of the Early Church Fathers is further proof that the scriptures and events surrounding Jesus' ministry are what is being preached today. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

  A study of Christian history will also verify that Jesus is the Son of God and he did live on earth at the time that we are told.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hallelujah,

  by the time the New Testament was being put together and the final touches and additions, subtractions, obliterations and alterations made, they would have known that it had moved beyond story into the realm of dogma and "truth"?

  Sure, but that process took several centuries and "they" were not the same. I mean, those who "invented" the stories and those who took them and defended them as history were not the same people, and neither of the two groups needed to be disingenuous.

  Probably the fact of writing was itself so awesome for wholly illiterate peoples that "for it is written" assumed a meaning which would should not prevail today.

  Very insightful remark. I would add that the antiquity and cultural distance of "scripture" was essential in convincing and comforting the early Christians who felt they could read their own recent belief in(to) old Jewish texts, as it is to modern literate believers when they read their faith in(to) "the Old Book". A similar effect of "awe" can be observed regardless of the difference in literacy.

  tmo,

  Just looking at the 4 Gospels, we have 4 different people who experienced the same first hand events and wrote about them separately after a number of years, and they remarkably tell the same story.

  I'm afraid this argument loses some of its apparent strength when you consider that the Gospel of Matthew, Luke and even John show literary dependency on the Gospel of Mark, which early Christian tradition did not hold as the work of an eyewitness.
• 

  hallelujah

  Hi Nark

  Talking about the power of "for it is written" do you know anything about "The Word". This phrase never really washed with me and always seemed like an effort to be mystical.

  I have also had to abandon the premise which I formerly held that there may be something salvagable from the actual words attributed to Jesus. I consider them no more certain than hearsay to the hundredth degree. Together with the decorations and stories surrounding these words, I think the actual words attributed to Jesus whether in life or in death can be given no special importance over anything else one may read in any section of any newspaper or any book in any library of the world. To assume that he may have said them undermines rational thought because it would not be possible that it would have been preserved and conveyed except through divine providence, an argument which rests on belief and faith which I no longer have in the Bible.

  Regards

  Dan
• 

  Narkissos

  Dan,

  do you know anything about "The Word". This phrase never really washed with me and always seemed like an effort to be mystical.

  Do you mean, as in John 1:1ff?

  Very shortly put, the Logos has a long Greek philosophical background (approximately meaning "Reason" as both the principle of cosmic order and human logic). When Judaism got in touch with it, it connected its own religious traditions about the Word of God as active and creative power (e.g. Genesis 1), and also the sapiential speculations about personified Wisdom (e.g. Proverbs 8) to it. The most outstanding example of this original mixture can be seen in the Jewish, pre-Christian works of Philo of Alexandria in the early 1st-century AD.