by The Quiet One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible
Please Lore, where did Jesus say he promised an end to wickedness?
Well I was actually joking. But I guess it depends on whether you think Jesus is god or not, and wether you think he inspired the bible or not:
Psalms 27:10 "Soon the wicked will disappear. Though you look for them, they will be gone."
But hey, I'm just glad you didn't ask me when Odin promised the end to Frost Giants. . .
TESTING Lore's comment I can't see it
Yeah that was weird.
Now I feel bad, with all the extra work you had to go through to see my response I should have given a better one.
Psalm 37:10 another scripture I find the Watchtower turns to violence against persons.
I think it means The wicked man will not find a place to be.
Or there won't be any place for the wicked man.
In other words "shape up or ship out!"
Thanks Lore your post was marvelous, but it's 37 not 27.
Psac-- I wanted to try to understand why it is that so many people believe in the Biblical Jesus (him being the Messiah) and yet very few in the absolute inerrancy of the book that contains the only historical documents, that I know of, giving an account of his miracles and resurrection. Especially when the accounts need to be excused as to things such as people like John, who got to the tomb first, not being mentioned.. But, some good points have been made. And I certainly accept that the disciples believed that they saw Jesus after he had died. By the way, how do you feel about the ending of Mark, verse 9 onwards, that was likely added on? And do you view the Gospels as seperate from the Bible canon as to being trustworthy, as in to be taken literally when other books are not? We'll forget the Mark 16:9 contradiction, I'm guessing that some would argue that only Mary was mentioned due to prominence, or that Mark's account ended abruptly for some reason..
By the way, how do you feel about the ending of Mark, verse 9 onwards, that was likely added on? And do you view the Gospels as seperate from the Bible canon as to being trustworthy, as in to be taken literally when other books are not? We'll forget the Mark 16:9 contradiction, I'm guessing that some would argue that only Mary was mentioned due to prominence, or that Mark's account ended abruptly for some reason..
Specifically, which contradiction are you referring to?
Jesus is but a waiter at a Mexica restaurant...
Johnathan-- Please see post 364. Basically, Mark says MM saw Jesus first, Matthew a group of women. I know what you'll say..
Johnathan-- Please see post 364. Basically, Mark says MM saw Jesus first, Matthew a group of women. I know what you'll say..
You're reading too much into it again. It doesn't say that group of women were first to see Jesus, it doesn't provide a chronological timeline that would require it, and it does not mention that Mary was with that group. They had obviously split up if she saw Jesus first back at the tomb. No contradiction.
Matthew 28:8, 9 "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him."
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-3.html#12
Here's a tougher question. If Jesus had met the women on the road on the way to telling the disciples, why didn't they tell the disciples in Luke that they had seen Jesus? Do you know how to resolve that apparent, though nonexistent, contradiction?
Only in the rarified world of evangelical christianity - a minority view - does anybody bother to perform mental gymnastics to try to resolve them.
Logic and common sense aren't gymnastics, simply because it eludes you. And it most certainly isn't a rarified minority view.
