Atheists..... throwing the baby out with the bath water ?

by snare&racket 403 Replies latest jw friends

  • tec
    tec

    What did you learn about Jesus from the gnostics or from "apocryphal gospels?

    I have not learned anything from them, other than there were a lot more writings gathered about Christ than are in the bible. If you recall, I stated that the writings I read to learn about Christ were placed in the bible. That doesnt' mean that I don't know there are other writings that were done, other people sending in their testimonies.

    Of course there was word of mouth before the gospels. There is no word of mouth now that didn't originate in the bible and we are talking about now.

    Well, I can't talk about what might have happened if there was no bible with authority, and neither can you. You can state what you think, same as me.

    You take the gospels with a grain of salt but you have no other source of data about the Jesus you claim to know.

    I do have another source now. I did not when I started out... well, not one that I knew to draw upon. Now I can ask Him, myself. But that is another can of worms, and I assume you guys want to know how my faith in Christ began.

    I think you did say you believe in the virgin birth.

    I said that I accept it. I could learn otherwise (such as it was meant to be symbolic for purity) and be fine - that is what I mean by 'grain of salt'. But for now, yes, I accept it.

    There is an example of something you couldn't know without trusting the gospels, do you agree?

    Sure. (Unless I asked and received truth on the matter from Christ, Himself - but again, different can of worms)

    Are there any parts of these account you don't accept?

    Nothing I can think off the top of my head.

    Sometimes I dont' fully understand the meaning behind something that was taught or said. But I also never claimed to understand everything.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Okay Tec. Do you think the gospel accounts are more accurate than the first five---Genesis to Deuteronomy? And if so, why? And if not, why?

    NC

  • tec
    tec

    And secondly, are these witness accounts more reliable than the first 5 books of the bible, and if so, why?

    Yes.

    Two reasons.

    One - anything Christ says is more reliable than anything else written or said anywhere. Because Christ is the Truth.

    However, the writing itself about what Christ said might not be more reliable than the writing from the first 5 books of the bible. Which brings me to reason 2.

    Two - If we are then taking the bible as a whole, then it is written in that book that Christ is the Truth... listen to Him. So again, within that book, the teachings and sayings of Christ are still the authority over any other book history, law, prophets, poetry, myth.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • tec
    tec

    NC - I'll respond to all your questions, but there's a few other people in this conversation and I can only type and read so fast. Give me some time :)

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    So in these gospel accounts, when Jesus refers to writings in the OT, would you say that his affirmation of OT accounts is dependable?

  • tec
    tec

    Luke 14:26
    - If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
    Did Jesus say this? I know the WT spin on this verse and the dance they do around the word 'hate' but it's there, so what's your take?

    Yes, I think he said this. My take is that it means we trust him first. Love him first. Not because he is selfish and vain, but because He speaks the truth and his words are life.

    If your father teaches you to treat women with disrespect and ownership and beatings, and you put him before Christ (who teaches to love others as self - and there are no eeptions in that), then you end up disrespecting and beating women. If you are raised that this is truth (beating women) to the point where you have accepted it as truth over what Christ taught... then you would do well to 'hate' yourself and instead listen to Christ.

    The parallel passage that sheds some light on this one speaks of loving mother/father/brother/sister/self MORE than Christ. But I find the same meaning in both. Especially since Christ said that we are to love one another, even our enemies. This verse is a teaching tool.

    Don't put more stock in what someone else teaches... over what Christ teaches.

    Matthew 7:7,8
    - Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
    What about this one? Everyone who prays knows that this isn't true but did Jesus say it?

    I pray, and I know its true. So yeah, I believe He said it.

    Peace, Tammy
  • cofty
    cofty

    I can't talk about what might have happened if there was no bible with authority, and neither can you.

    Yes we can say for a certainty nobody today would know anything about Jesus of Nazareth.

    You say you accept Matthew's account of the virgin birth. You have chosen to give credibility to that particular piece of data. When we look at the text more carefully we find that Matthew based this on a mistranslation in the Septuagint.

    So why do you choose to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? The real meaning behind the myth is the subjugation of women and the male fear of female sexuality. The ultimate woman is a virgin mother!

    There is no useful data at all about Jesus in any extra-biblical source and the data in the bible is frequently contradictory, historically impossible and sometimes shows him to be an arrogant prick.

    Where do you get your version of Jesus from if not from cherry picking the bible?

  • tec
    tec

    Do you think the gospel accounts are more accurate than the first five---Genesis to Deuteronomy? And if so, why? And if not, why?

    Sorry, I just wanted to add also that they don't claim to be truth or inerrant. Some of those are just history/record keeping.

    So in these gospel accounts, when Jesus refers to writings in the OT, would you say that his affirmation of OT accounts is dependable?

    The specific account that he refers to, yes. But dependable how? As a literal account? As a reference to the moral learned from the account? As a reference to the original event which may have been misrepresented (in understanding or in the literal/metaphorical nature of it) in scripture over the last couple thousand years? As a reference to a myth (like aesop's fables) that the people understood the meaning? We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Someone referencing the boy who cried wolf is not necessarily stating that this fable is a literal story.

    So yes, I think his affirmation of accounts makes those accounts dependable. Dependable in what way though? That depends on the purpose. Just because we have been taught to look at something in a certain way does not mean that it was so a couple thousand years ago.

    Do you understand what I mean?

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • N.drew
    N.drew

    There is a problem with listening to scripture when you don't care what it says. A little investigating on my part found the problem with the scripture you brought up.

    Matthew 7:7,8 You read "everyone" asking receives but what I suspect it means is "every kind" out of the whole. See for yourself please.

    http://concordances.org/greek/3956.htm

    7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

    We KNOW it doesn't mean every person who asks God for something gets it because everyone praying does not receive what they prayed for, even if they seem to need it more than anything.

    It means- Everything for the asking can be got. simplified from the Greek.

    It means (in English) Everything that God has can be layed hold of by asking for it. http://concordances.org/greek/2983.htm

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Okay. So let me get specific. The law of Moses has been well-preserved. It was written the same in Jesus' day and it is today---I believe the dead sea scrolls shows this. So when referring to the mosaic law, Jesus was working with the same law we are working with today. He read it in the scrolls of his day, the same way we read it in the bible today.

    In matters of law, Jesus lived under it. He was in total agreement with it. He said he didn't come to take it away, but to fulfill it. So it is fair to say he was introducing a new way, while still supporting the old way.

    Because he spoke of it often, do you believe that Jesus agreed with the law---at least up to that particular point? I already understand he instituted changes, so please don't point me forward. I want to investigate backward for a bit. Do you agree that Jesus respected the law, as was, up to the point of the new covenant? He said he did. Do you accept that?

    NC

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit