May you have peace. I apologize for the late response. Please know that I take your request seriously and so have PM'd you. Please check there.
Your Servant and Slave of Christ,
SA
Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?
by compound complex 88 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
CyrusThePersian
JosephMalik
The problem with Jude's authenticity is not so much that he used "common thoughts and expressions" but that he thought that 1st Enoch was the real deal, an inspired work. In v.14 of Jude, he uses the word "prophesied." This shows that Jude believed 1st Enoch to be a God-breathed work. 1st Enoch obviously isn't, It's a forgery. The fact that Jude didn't know this severely discredits his epistle.
CyrusThePersian
-
funkyderek
AGuest:
what I have to say is of no value at all
Finally we agree on something, Shelby!
-
JosephMalik
The problem with Jude's authenticity is not so much that he used "common thoughts and expressions" but that he thought that 1st Enoch was the real deal, an inspired work. In v.14 of Jude, he uses the word "prophesied." This shows that Jude believed 1st Enoch to be a God-breathed work. 1st Enoch obviously isn't, It's a forgery. The fact that Jude didn't know this severely discredits his epistle.
CyrusThePersian,
Jude did not say that 1 Enoch was inspired scripture as you say here or even quote heavily from it as many such works existed at the time and you should be able to see that Jude like James was once one of those he now addresses. Enoch said some things that Jude could use against them. And since he knew that it was something they knew or believed in he could use it to make his point. The word prophesied does not have to mean more than that and authenticate everything else in this book. We prophesy all the time here and get some things right also that others can use. But that does not make us inspired writers. Since they were of the elite we would expect them to know such works. Jude like James finally involved himself in the same battle Paul had been fighting for many years. It was the same battle in which Paul appointed men like Timothy and together with them appointed other overseers to fight it. Paul obtained his authority from Christ and as an Apostle with real and demonstrated authority could use it both for himself and also transfer it to others by laying on of hands. Such Apostolic appointments were used to put a stop to false doctrine and those responsible for it like these Jews. Once they all died, this ability and such physical links were lost and no one else can be called an overseer with some kind of Godly authority over any other person claiming to be a disciple. The scriptures and such things taught in them would now be enough to do this.
Joseph
-
Inkie
So, Jeff, you would believe because the "entire world knows" that these individuals exist, regardless of the fact that you have never seen or spoken with them. So what you are saying is that you believe because you trust what the "entire world knows" even though you yourself have not experienced such knowledge. (Your logic might be a little skewed here in that at one point in time, the entire world believed the earth was flat. And you would believe it to be true too. Actually, there are some people even today who believe the world is flat.) So, pretty much, your belief is based on trust--trust in those who tell you something.
You state that "we have documented evidence" that these politicians exist. Do we not have "documented evidence" that various cartoon characters exist? that they life in Disneyland? and that you can even visit them there? It's documented evidence, yes?
You would like God to "allow himself to be filmed" and that would clinch the deal for you. Interesting. Being filmed is a serious criterion for you. Interesting.
You ask me to reason with you and to "reverse the question." Tell me something, Jeff, what of all the millions of people who have never had a photograph taken of themselves? or of the millions of people who lived before photography or cameras of any kind were invented? Did none of those people exist because we have no photographs? Come on, Jeff. Really? We have the writings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle--do you question their existence? According to your logic you do. We have the writings of those who were contemporaries of and who wrote about people like Marie Antoinette or William the Conqueror or Marco Polo or Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Marc Antony or King David, etc., etc., etc. According to your logic/reasoning, you would question the existence of these people because no camera ever captured their likeness. Did any of these people write about themselves? Most did not. Others, however, did. Interesting logic you have. I suppose you may as well question the existence of anyone and everyone who has not had a photo taken.
--Inkie
-
TD
So, pretty much, your belief is based on trust--trust in those who tell you something.
Probably more than we would like to admit, that's true of all of us. One of the classic, opening week exercises in a course on critical thinking is the difference between "Reason" and "Knowledge." Typically, the professor deliberately takes a contrary position (e.g. The earth is flat) and laughs at the class while they try to prove otherwise. Virtually everything that is offered as "proof" by the class is a logical fallacy.
"Everybody knows?" --That's an appeal to common knowledge. "The Encyclopedia says so" --That's an appeal to authority. "Your uncle was an astronaut?" --That's anecdotal evidence. "It's been known for years?" --That's an appeal to antiquity. "It can be proven mathematically?" --Let's see you do it.
The point, of course is that we accept some things via reason, but a great many more simply as knowledge. Most people, for example, are smugly aware that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 m/s, but very, very few of those same people possess either the technical or mathematical acumen to actually prove it empirically; In fact, they wouldn't even know where to start.
Given that distinction, I don't think anyone should feel terribly hypocritical over the fact that they simply accept some things as, "knowledge" while demanding proof for others, provided the latter of the two falls into the category of unsettled controversy.
-
AGuest
was silent, last night, and today. As it usually is when I am compelled to respond to someone's challenge to "prove it" (which I don't do very often as not everyone who says they really want to know... really do. On occasion, they really do [want to know], however, and praise JAH... they really do [come to know]. More often than not, though, when push [with words] comes to shove [with words]... well, there's not a whole lot said. Dead silence, in some instances).
I used to wonder why this was, why folks would SAY they wanted to know... and then when presented with the opportunity, would... I dunno... backoff, backout... disappear...???? And then my Lord answered my question: it's not that they don't want to know - it's that their AFRAID of what they might come to know! About God, and Christ, yes... but also about themselves. So, as long as we don't have to look at the Light... we don't have to look at ourselves. So long as we keep ourselves convinced there is no God, we don't really have to own up to much of anything.
Dear ones, please know this: yes, the FIRST thing the Christ reveals to you... is yourself. The FIRST thing His Light "shines" upon... is you. The good... the bad... and the ugly. The WONDERFUL thing... is that he illuminates it... between YOU... and HIM... alone. Just as he taught US to do when someone sinned against us: "If your brother has committed a sin... against you... go reveal his sin... between you and him, alone!"
Unlike earthling man, he doesn't put you on display. What he does is help YOU... see... YOU... and where YOU are "NAKED" (i.e., unclothed... lacking clothing/covering for...). And then he offers 2 choices:
1. You can "put on" love... which COVERS... a multitude of transgressions... OR
2. You can take advantage of his blood... which "atones" for sin/transgression.
It is NOT a scary process, dear ones, coming into union with the Light. Well, okay, maybe it is a bit. But it is not an insurmountably scary process. Is it hard? Can be, certainly! But... WE... HAVE... A... HELPER. The Holy Spirit, that is the Christ. The "Propitiatory," who was given to COVER our sin/error.
So, to those who keep throwing out "prove it," "show me," etc., etc., let me say this to you: I take your challenges seriously. I will not run from you - NOT because I am obstinate (quiet down, FunkyDerek, et al.), but because if YOU knew... what I knew... I would want YOU... to show ME. Therefore, I am only trying to do UNTO you what I would want YOU... to do unto me. If you are TRULY wishing... and thirsting.
By means of the spirit of the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH of Armies, which spirit I received from His Son and Christ, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, therefore, I stand and will continue to stand with that One, THE Holy Spirit, and with His Bride and say to you:
"Come! ALL you who are thirsting and wishing... COME... take 'life's water'... FREE!"
I received it freely; I have absolutely NO problem sharing with ANYONE... freely. No problem whatsoever.
I bid you peace.
A servant to the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go with,
SA
-
AllTimeJeff
I don't call people too much on the internet, so please don't take me not calling as evidence of what you suggest AGuest. I can only credit you so much for good intentions before I have to pull the plug.
I want to know from god, not from an anonymous poster if god exists. AGuest, your presumption that you can succeed where SO MANY have failed to do so is not your fault. But consider that in the thiestic world of mediation that you have in effect offered to mediate a relationship between me and god. Does this mean Christ failed where you will succeed?
I used to wonder why this was, why folks would SAY they wanted to know... and then when presented with the opportunity, would... I dunno... backoff, backout... disappear...???? And then my Lord answered my question: it's not that they don't want to know - it's that their AFRAID of what they might come to know! About God, and Christ, yes... but also about themselves .
You said it. I will let your logic and your arguements stand for themselves. Suffice to say, I am afraid of nothing, but I can't take the offer of every god lover to tell me that god loves me and I can "listen". You are not the first to try this with me AGuest?
So has your god told you if I will die or not? Am I judged? You don't have to do the judging, I am just curious in your conversations with your Lord if you can tell me what's on his mind. I am truly curious what you are hearing.
-
AllTimeJeff
So, Jeff, you would believe because the "entire world knows" that these individuals exist, regardless of the fact that you have never seen or spoken with them. So what you are saying is that you believe because you trust what the "entire world knows" even though you yourself have not experienced such knowledge. (Your logic might be a little skewed here in that at one point in time, the entire world believed the earth was flat. And you would believe it to be true too. Actually, there are some people even today who believe the world is flat.) So, pretty much, your belief is based on trust--trust in those who tell you something.
This is why I made the comment earlier about semantics and thiests. Inkie, I think most people who read my statements will admit that when I said "the entire world knows" certain world leaders, that I obviously can't answer for "the entire world." I hope you will forgive my statistical misstatement. Mea Culpa! If you can work with the semantics of my arguement, you will see that my comments were about the amount of evidence available as to who is alive and actually exisits and who is myth and is not in existence.
On to the substance; my belief is based on evidence. The fact that some people in the world don't have access to a video or a polaroid of Hillary or Obama doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact remains that there is no physical evidence of god. We have myths and the same amount of evidence that Jesus is god as there is that Zeus is god. In fact, Jesus has a lot in common with Zeus, especially with how involved he has been in the world today.
You state that "we have documented evidence" that these politicians exist. Do we not have "documented evidence" that various cartoon characters exist? that they life in Disneyland? and that you can even visit them there? It's documented evidence, yes?
Where to begin with this hum dinger! I want you to know Inkie that I am sitting here at my computer fighting the urge to be a smart ass. Suffice to say, in your comparison you have basically made my point, that the evidence for existence is the same between God and Cartoon Charecters. I would work with your metaphor if I could. May I suggest a stronger arguement next time.
Come on, Jeff. Really? We have the writings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle--do you question their existence? According to your logic you do. We have the writings of those who were contemporaries of and who wrote about people like Marie Antoinette or William the Conqueror or Marco Polo or Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Marc Antony or King David, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, I do question; not their existence but the total veracity and truthfulness of the facts known about them. Hell, what don't we know about Nixon? Public Firgures do lie about themselves. But there is evidence that these people lived. The gods they worshipped? Diferent story. Whats your point Inkie? Think about it. I am not questioning the existence of real people that have existed in history. Even these historical figures worshipped gods that were real to them, but we have no evidence for their god! That is the point.
You really seem hung up on me stating that photographic evidence would be nice. (please dont put a picture of a sunrise or a flower...) I will be plain for your benefit. A photograph is a metaphor for real evidence. A powerful person, a leader today is seen and quoted all the time. Their existence is not questioned by the sane. Yet the most powerful personage of all the universe can't do better then old scrolls thousands of years old? Or the occasional stranger who claims to hear the voice of god in their heads? But thiests get all upset because people like me say "Hey! There really isn't any evidence to support the idea of god.." NO EVIDENCE!
-
dawg
All time jeff, that was a brilliant argument!