by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible
That's why he doesn't appear in secular history.
Yes. Additionally, the works of Roman historians who lived during Jesus' ministry or during the next century have almost completely perished. All things considered, comparatively very, very few historians have concluded that Jesus did not exist.
Frank
Yet, show me the proof OUTSIDE of the bible. It does not exist. The insanity of christianty is mind boggeling. Why would YHWH (who has been shown NOT to be god almighty but rather a jewish god treat humans the way he did in the OT, then here comes jesus the son of god. But really what did his sacrifice accomplish? Nothing, its absurd. If your child sins against you do you have him roast the family dog out back to appease you? Or does he crucify himself to absolve the sin? Is that what YOU would ask for as a lowely human? Or would you rather not just FORGIVE by words and deeds? Blood sacrifice? Why do we continue to believe a barbaric means of atonement. God can only forgive if he has blood or a life is given (and really jesus didn't lose his life as he was resurrected - so where's the ransom that paul speaks of)?
Christianity, from its inception was always a means of power. It was used to ralley the jews together because of roman persecution. Later the church fathers realized it was a powerful tool for control. It has and always will be a way to control the minds and lives of people. You can't have a religion without a focal point and thus the stroies of "jesus" started coming out decades or even centuries after the fact. So, three toed aliens on the planet klatu are fantasy, yet we believe whole heartedly that jesus existed from the contents of the bible. Hmmm, I think scientology has books on alien beings as well - should I take that as truth also?
Nonsense. The one thing that damns the trinity doctrine is the simple fact that Jesus cannot be the mediator between God and man and yet also be God. You cannot be a mediator between yourself and someone else. In fact, in this respect the trinity is a denial of Jesus' mediatorship, and thus an antichrist teaching. Jesus cannot also be God yet hand the kingdom back to God at the end of his millennial reign. You can't hand something back to yourself. These logical fallacies escape Athanasians. Jesus is divine/god-like in nature and only has a type of functional equality while all things have been given to him, but that's as far as it goes. He is clearly a lesser 'God' than the Father.
Frank,
You cited the text that says God spoke to us "through the prophets" well Isaiah and Daniel were Prophets. This does not mean that Jesus did not and could not have spoken directly to them. In fact both of these prophets had encounters with Jesus in his pre-human form and others did as well. Before I get to that I want to address another point:
Someone said only a few minute texts mention Jesus or a Messiah in the OT?. In fact every single prophet - prophesied about the coming messiah. Here is a link to all the prophecies Christ fulfilled which includes over 300 in the OT alone.
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
Look at Daniel 10:1-11, here Daniel sees and speaks with Christ in his pre-human form. Compare this with Revelation 1:12-16. By comparing these texts we can see that this IS Jesus. Although the man he spoke with is not called "Jesus" (a name given to him only once he was born on earth) Daniel identifies Jesus as "a son of man" - a term used in the NT for Jesus many times. Sometimes the prophets identified Jesus in another way. You will see what I mean below:
Many people do not realize that when in the OT someone says they "saw" God - it was not GOD the Father that they saw. Why? Because all scripture must be in harmony and John 6:46 and 1:18 both say "no one has ever seen the Father, only Jesus has and God is revealed through him alone.
So were the prophets lying when they said they saw God? No because Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), then if anyone at anytime has "seen" God, then we should expect that they saw the image of the invisible God, the Word, Jesus. Even the OT says no one can see God and live. That is why when some of the OT prophets thought they saw GOD they expected to die immediately. They may have thought it was GOD the father but it could NOT have been. It was definately the image of God, Jesus Christ.
Other people besides Daniel who saw Jesus as the image of God in the OT:
Abraham (Gen 18-19:1)
Moses (Exodus 33:11)
Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5)
I am still working on this research so it is not complete. There are many more scriptures about Jesus in the OT that I hope to put into one document. Hope this helps everyone, Lilly
Inquisitor:
It's inevitable word-association.
I disagree. It needn't be inevitable at all. I do, however, accept that the association was implanted in us by the WTS. IMHO, for that very reason it's worth attemptng to break it!
While I accept the Trinity doctrine, I have no argument with those who do not. I'd rather agree to disagree on the minutea. Even the WTS (on rare occasions) points to the bible translation that renders John 1:1 as "...and the Word was Divine...".
You cited the text that says God spoke to us "through the prophets" well Isaiah and Daniel were Prophets. This does not mean that Jesus did not and could not have spoken directly to them.
Lilly,
You have a choice. Either you can take the writer of Hebrews at his word or you can try to force your pre-conceived notion into what he wrote. I prefer to take him at his word. As I said above, you are denying the uniqueness of Jesus' ministry. You are saying he spoke to men "in the past" whereas the writer of Hebrews 1:1, 2 makes it very clear that God's Son first began speaking to men in "these last days," to use his words, not before "these last days."
Frank
Frank,
This is what you said:
You have a choice. Either you can take the writer of Hebrews at his word or you can try to force your pre-conceived notion into what he wrote. I prefer to take him at his word. As I said above, you are denying the uniqueness of Jesus' ministry. You are saying he spoke to men "in the past" whereas the writer of Hebrews 1:1, 2 makes it very clear that God's Son first began speaking to men "in these last days," to use his words, not before "these last days."
I am not forcing any preconcieved notions onto that text in Hebrews. It says in the past God spoke to the Jews forefathers through the prophets at various times and in many ways. Then Hebrews states instead of God speaking through the prophets - he now (in these last days) has spoken to "us" by way of his son.
Who is the "us" being addressed here? They are the heirs of the kingdom.
This scripture is simply saying that While God spoke to our forefathers in the past by way of using the prophets - he now in this time (last days) has spoken to us who are heirs of the kingdom by way of his son. He is not using prophets any longer to speak to them for his son has arrived. (whom all the prophets pointed to)
What in this verse says that Jesus in his prehuman existance could not have spoken to the prophets? Nothing here says that. Because the "us" does not include the prophets - the "us" being addressed are the heirs of the kingdom that were chosen in the Christian era. Do you understand what I am saying here? And yes Jesus only spoke to the heirs of the kingdom in the last days for that is the time period that began upon his arrival. (this is another topic)
But, this verse in no way states that Jesus was not allowed to speak to anyone prior to coming to earth.
I am not denying the accuracy of that text in Hebrews. My simple point is that YES God spoke to the forefathers of the Jews by way of Prophets but those prophets who claimed they "saw" God face to face actually saw Jesus in his pre-human form as the image of God. If they saw God himself it would not be in harmony with the other scriptures that say "no man has seen the father" or "no man can see God and live".
Others ways God communicated with the prophets was thru Angels. But there are some specific accounts that show it was not a mere Angel that appeared because the prophets did not say they saw an "Angel" they said they "saw God himself". It is in these cases where I believe it was the image of God they saw which was Jesus. That is how they "saw" God but lived.
Why would we not think that Jesus was active in the OT?
Lilly
Lilly,
I think it's simply amazing how you are attempting to destroy the meaning of Hebrews 1:1, 2. Your explanation tries to make it appear that this portion of the Bible doesn't exist or that it's uninspired. Why can't you accept the simple fact that the writer is saying times are different in "these last days"? His point is very clear. He says plainly that God spoke in many and various ways in the past. But he did not do it through his Son. Instead he did it through the prophets. It is beyond me that you can't accept his simple explanation of facts.
In chapter 2, verses 2 and 3, he makes the point that it was very serious to disobey God when he spoke in the past but that it is much more serious now because of the change. The change came when God began speaking by means of his Son. This, in fact, is a big part of the message of the epistle to the Hebrews. Why are you trying to water it down?
Frank
Will2power:......He is clearly a lesser 'God' than the Father.
Really? Care to work this out?
