by iCeltic 62 Replies latest watchtower bible
TEC
For most, probably the bible... or word of mouth. Remember though, that there was no bible for quite some time after Christ lived in the flesh. Though very few, I think, would have the faith to put their faith in someone they had not first heard about from someone/somewhere else.
MP:
So how do you explain that Jesus and Jehovah did such a bad job in preserving their message to mankind ?
Why do you believe this enormous game of Chinese whispers ? Why dont you blieve in Mohammad ?
You can't claim to know special magical 'truth' either about or from 'Jesus' independent from the only available source of information.
'Special magical truth'... perhaps not.
But truth... yes, I can claim to know this... from THE source: the Spirit of Truth/the Spirit of Christ.
The bible is not the only available source of information. That is a lie that people speak, because they do not, themselves know of another source. But even that source says that the SPIRIT will teach.
All the stories about Jesus (most of them contradictory) originate from the Bible (including stories that were arbitrarily rejected when the Bible was 'canonised' nearly 1700 years ago that were previously regarded as 'scripture'). It's not a "firm" foundation at all. It's no foundation. It's just your imagination. That's why your view of Jesus happens to accord so well with your own personal opinions.
Christ is a firm foundation... He is the only foundation. I fully know the history of the canonization, etc... which is how I know that the bible is not one book; inerrant; and fully inspired.
I don't think you know my personal opinions to be able to make the statement that you made about me above though.
My 'personal opinions' don't mean much at all, and have changed as HE has taught ME. He has not changed to conform to my personal opinions. Just the opposite.
But you are right about the Bible not being inerrant or 'inspired' (whatever that means).
Inspired means... in the spirit. So that a person was in the spirit, receiving FROM the Spirit... and that was written down. John in Revelation was 'in the spirit' and received from the Spirit. So that book is inspired. The prophets received from the Spirit, so their visions/dreams/etc... are inspired.
Peace,
tammy
mP:
Are you saying i cant invent my own Jesus just like all the other 50000 christian religions ?
No, I'm saying the exact opposite.
tec:
yes, I can claim to know this
Well, yes, you can "claim" to know anything at all. You'll just be wrong.
But even that source says that the SPIRIT will teach.
Which is basically the same as, "A magic thing will happen." It's rubbish.
I don't think you know my personal opinions to be able to make the statement that you made about me above though.
I know enough.
Inspired means... in the spirit. So that a person was in the spirit, receiving FROM the Spirit... and that was written down. John in Revelation was 'in the spirit' and received from the Spirit. So that book is inspired. The prophets received from the Spirit, so their visions/dreams/etc... are inspired.
I know the tedious semantics. "In the spirit" is an entirely empty meaningless definition with no demonstrable mechanism. It's just a claim. Absolutely nothing more.
Well, yes, you can "claim" to know anything at all. You'll just be wrong.
Well, this is just a claim too, is it not? You can certainly make it of course... and you'll just be wrong.
Which is basically the same as, "A magic thing will happen." It's rubbish.
Do you consider everything not yet scientifically proven... magic then?
I know enough.
I was being polite. You don't know my personal opinions to be able to make the statement you made above. You're assuming... I assume you are doing so because it is a common argument used against believers; regardless of whether it is true or not. I, however, know myself... and I know what I used to believe (from my own personal opinion)... as opposed to what my Lord has taught me to be true.
Peace,
tammy
tec:
Well, this is just a claim too, is it not? You can certainly make it of course... and you'll just be wrong.
No. Because the specific claim we're talking about is your claim that you've received special insights from Jesus. You have no evidence of this. None. Nothing.
Do you consider everything not yet scientifically proven... magic then?
This leading question is attempting to shift the goalposts, by juxtaposing the irrational with the unknown.
as opposed to what my Lord has taught me to be true.
"Special insights" is your term, not mine.
And your claim is that I would be wrong; and that such a thing does not/cannot happen.
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I don't have to do that. I just find it odd when people tell other with absolute certainty what they have or have not experienced; without having any experience themselves.
I do have evidence... just none that you are willing to accept, at least not without experiencing Him yourself. I have no problem with that; I just am not going to pretend that Christ does not speak or keep silent about that when I know the opposite to be true. There are those out there who are seeking Him though, and so I can at least speak as a witness to Him, for those who are seeking.
Peace,
tammy
tec:
"Special insights" is your term, not mine.
Yes, I'm familiar with your tendency to toy with semantics. Call it what you like. Your magical signals from Jesus still won't be real.
I do have evidence... just none that you are willing to accept, at least not without experiencing Him yourself.
If you 'know' that I'm not willing to accept your 'evidence', it is because you know that it doesn't actually qualify as such.
Yes, I'm familiar with your tendency to toy with semantics. Call it what you like. Your magical signals from Jesus still won't be real.
Another claim.
And if people were more careful with the terms and phrases that they used, there could possibly be less misundertandings.
If you 'know' that I'm not willing to accept your 'evidence', it is because you know that it doesn't actually qualify as such.
I am afraid that you are wrong on this.
There are different types of evidence, Jeffro. Some types are considered more acceptable than others (direct evidence vs. circumstantial... firsthand witness accounts vs. hearsay... etc, etc)... and that may depend upon the subject (or legal matter) at hand.
Peace,
tammy
tec:
And if people were more careful with the terms and phrases that they used, there could possibly be less misundertandings.
There was no 'misunderstanding'. I knew what I meant. You knew what I meant.
There are different types of evidence, Jeffro. Some types are considered more acceptable than others
You haven't offered any evidence. And there's a good reason why some supposed evidence is not valid.
