I'm a woman. I don't want to discuss WT beliefs. The question was academic. What makes you say their eyes were fogged over? There is no indication of that in the Bible.
NC
Jesus was just a man?
by Joey Jo-Jo 96 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
godrulz
Good question. Lk. 24:15 Jesus himself came up and walked along with them (no evidence it was a temporary form to cover the spirit recreation of Michael; it was the risen, glorified Christ, not a temporary form; his body was not dissolved into gasses in space like WT says...sorry to mention WT); but they were KEPT from recognizing Him (NIV). Lk. 24:31 THEN their EYES WERE OPENED and they RECOGNIZED Him (he did not change, but their perception did; Jesus was Himself, but their eyes were the problem; cf. Paul's conversion experience has some seeing/hearing things, but others did not who were also present; spiritual, supernatural issues here vs natural alone). Lk. 24:36 Jesus Himself stood among them. v. 39 (refutes JW spirit recreation in favor of biblical physical resurrection/glorification...sorry again for WT allusion). Look at my hands and my feet (continuity, not illusion). TOUCH me and see; a ghost (WT spirit idea) does NOT have flesh and bones, as you see I have. Was Jesus misleading them with apparitions or was He making factual statements (glorified bodies like the saints will have can eat/drink, but not need bathroom; they are not immaterial, nor are they flesh/blood natural/mortal). Jn. 2:19-21 The temple Jesus spoke of that would be raised from the dead was HIS BODY (contra spirit recreation concept). I will raise it again in 3 days (it being the body they saw standing in front of them). I Cor. 15 is also relevant. Resurrection is always physical, bodily in Scripture, never raising of a spirit (recreation). What applies to Jesus applies to men's resurrection in the future.
It is good to let Scripture speak for itself, but I personally don't have a problem contrasting it with influential views held by Mormons, Muslims (deny resurrection of Christ), or JWs. When the right view is put alongside a wrong view, the contrast is noteworthy.
We should conform our views to the Bible instead of changing the Bible to match our views. If we don't believe in the Bible, we can at least understand and represent what it does teach. One can reject the God of the Bible, but we should at least be fair what it says about God. We can reject what it says about man's sin, Christ's death, salvation, heaven, judgment, etc., but we should at least understand and not misrepresent what it says. I would expect reading Karl Marx, etc. to be fairly represented/understood by those who reject it (vs straw man attacks).
-
still thinking
marking to read later.....I see you're up to your usual tricks godrulz....
-
godrulz
Say it aint so. When asked a direct Bible question, I assumed it would be rude to not answer. Note that it was teaching, not preaching, so I think I am safe. I hope I don't wake up dead before I can say good-bye to friends (er friend) and foes.
-
Black Sheep
We should conform our views to the Bible instead of changing the Bible to match our views. If we don't believe in the Bible, we can at least understand and represent what it does teach. One can reject the God of the Bible, but we should at least be fair what it says about God. We can reject what it says about man's sin, Christ's death, salvation, heaven, judgment, etc., but we should at least understand and not misrepresent what it says.
Now apply what you have just said to a discussion on Jesus cursing the fig tree
-
godrulz
I am not sure what you don't like about the link answers. If there is a connection and object lesson for Israel, it seems like there is not a problem. Excuse my laziness, but I did not reread the story in detail or research possible explanations. It seems like a non-issue since I trust Jesus implicitly and know there is a reason even if we don't understand it. The same goes for hell and justice. We might not understand this fully, but if we trust God, we know that His standard is higher than ours, that He is right in all His ways, that He is not a cruel monster that tortures people, that He is loving and holy, etc. God is trustworthy and our understanding is fallen and fallible, unlike His. In my mind, you need to settle issues about His life, death, Deity, resurrection. The fig tree thing has no bearing on God and salvation, the real issues.
-
THE GLADIATOR
I would question that they are Christians if they deny that the Bible is the Word of God. Nominal, liberal, pseudo-Christians should not be confused with the real thing. Evangelicals have a high view of Scripture. If it is not the Word of God, we have no basis for Christianity. Do these so-called christians also deny the Deity and resurrection of Christ? If so, they are definitely not Christians.
Many atheists and agnostics have also made the same observation. There have been many debates on this forum about this matter.
What confuses many who examine Christianity is the way some Christians believe the bible to be the foundation of Christianity and others don’t. It makes more sense to me to see the bible as a collection of ideas written by man. Christianity based solely on faith in an invisible Jesus is much harder to pull apart.
Until there is agreement on this matter, the Christian message will be lost on most people.
-
Black Sheep
I am not sure what you don't like about the link answers.
Well you should have read and understood my posts the first time.
Neither of them discussed the issue. Both of them ignored Jesus' own words on the matter.
Even you didn't agree with the authors 'explanations' and explained why without dealing with Jesus actions and words yourself.....
.... and you wish to be excused for your laziness while chastising JW's for their's.
If you had been intolerant of double standards ....... in yourself ............. you might have earned yourself some of the respect you desire so much.
... and now you also want to pour water on the fires of hell just like the cult you came hear to recruit from??? "...that He is not a cruel monster that tortures people,"
-
still thinking
It seems like a non-issue since I trust Jesus implicitly and there is a reason even if we don't understand it. The same goes for hell and justice. We might not understand this fully, but if we trust God, we know that His standard is higher than ours, that He is right in all His ways, that He is not a cruel monster that tortures people, that He is loving and holy, etc. God is trustworthy and our understanding is fallen and fallible, unlike His.
Godrulz...this is exactly the type of thing I was told when I was studying with JW's, and some of the blind reasoning I used too....and what is more scary..this is almost word for word what my study lady said to me one day (take out the hell part)
Don't you think that ALL scripture is inspired and beneficial? This should have a reason for being there then. And surely it should be worthy of discussing...who knows...there may be a valuable lesson in there for ALL of us.
-
Pistoff
The reason I spend any time at all challenging closed minds like godrulz is that he will likely vote for the most 'christian' candidate; that would be Michelle Bachmann, the craziest candidate out there, just because she hits his sweet spots: Jesus, no abortion, less funding for public schools, more influence from christian sources on government.
Godrulz keeps asking me what my point is; my point is that those who study the facts in a neutral (ie, not with a propensity to believe or not believe) way, the historicity of Paul, Jesus and the early church say the same thing: it is not what we thought, and it is not REAL like moderns might think of as real; it is not historical. Important, but not literal.
The takeaway is that those who think Jesus is punishing the US for allowing gays and abortion are relying on a totally unreliable source for history, the Bible.
Take it as a social fable, or a guide for ethics; but don't take this very flawed collection of books for actual history or how to run a world power.
So, if one wants to believe, fine; but to allow the radical christian right to drive the country off a cliff for Jesus is something we should ALL work to avoid.
The very right to believe what we want is endangered by the christian right; you have seen that it isn't enough for godrulz to say you are a christian, or be a christian; you have to be HIS kind of christian; no social gospel christians for godrulz, you must be a born again, tongue speaking, abortion hating, flag waving evangelical for his Jesus. Godrulz, like Paul, is also not interested in Jesus' social message, only, like Paul, the raised up, homosexual hating, woman hating, sword carrying majority hating Jesus.
The right to believe what we want will only ever be protected by keeping government neutral and separate from religion, where ever the radicals come from, muslim, jewish or christian.