by Watchtower-Free 223 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I've read the book of Joshua, Adamah.
Does not change that Christ is the truth of God, and God does not change. Men do though. Men do all sorts of things in the name of God, sincerely thinking that it is what God wants. They cannot or will not hear different. Hence... the Truth of God came to men, as one of their brother's... to show them the Truth.
Peace,
tammy
TEC said-
Men do all sorts of things in the name of God, sincerely thinking that it is what God wants.
Again, you're missing the point that apparently God DID want Joshua to kill in His name: the mere mention of the name Joshua in the Tanakh would suggest that God approved of his actions. In fact, Jehovah is even quoted as giving ORDERS to direct the military campaigns, and providing support via miracles (Joshua and walls of Jericho come tumbling down ring a bell? Holding Sunlight to allow military victory?).
They cannot or will not hear different.
Irony noted of TEC confirming that some people will believe only what they WANT to believe.
Adam
Adamah, you cannot win your argument. Any scripture that supports your argument is dismissed by TEC.
You guys should get a room.
Again, you're missing the point that apparently God DID want Joshua to kill in His name: the mere mention of the name Joshua in the Tanakh would suggest that God approved of his actions.
No, it doesn't suggest that at all. You would have to first believe that God, himself, wrote the book and titled it. Then also that there are no errors and no errors or misunderstanding came into the text (you know... lying pen of the scribes; woe to you scribes... these include translation errors, etc)
In fact, Jehovah is even quoted as giving ORDERS to direct the military campaigns, and providing support via miracles (Joshua and walls of Jericho come tumbling down ring a bell? Holding Sunlight to allow military victory?).
He is written to have said this... but not all that is attributed to God is from God... anymore than all that is attributed to God now is from God.
The walls came down according to the power that God gave them, yes.
But to rush in to kill everyone inside... no.
Irony noted of TEC confirming that some people will believe only what they WANT to believe.
This statment is ironic, yes. But the irony is that I believe according to CHRIST... not my own wishes... and those like you choose according to what you want to believe. You must. Because you dismiss Christ to believe what YOU want to believe. Because there are certainly contradictions in even the OT as to the nature of God, never mind the corrections and truth that Christ bore witness TO, and taught.
How do you choose what to believe from those contradictions... if not by what you want to believe?
You ignore Christ completely to be able to maintain the image you want to maintain of God.
Peace,
tammy
OTWO said-
Adamah, you cannot win your argument. Any scripture that supports your argument is dismissed by TEC.
I cannot convince TEC, if that's what you mean. I'm fully aware of her willingness to move goalposts at will (eg allowing Bible passages when it suits her examples, but then dismissing Bible passages or interpretations which don't), so that's not my goal.
Instead, she's easily shown as illogical by her very own words, and that's really the point of engaging with her: it's an opportunity for others to see the "pseudo-reasoning" she routinely displays, almost as if she's proud of it (!), so they can see the possible error(s) they also may be making in THEIR reasoning.
Adam
This statment is ironic, yes. But the irony is that I believe according to CHRIST... not my own wishes... and those like you choose according to what you want to believe. You must. Because you dismiss Christ to believe what YOU want to believe. Because there are certainly contradictions in even the OT as to the nature of God, never mind the corrections and truth that Christ bore witness TO, and taught.
How do you choose what to believe from those contradictions... if not by what you want to believe?
This very thread is a PERFECT example of how one rationally determines what they believe: by examining the evidence, hypotheses, and THEN deciding if the contrary evidence is compelling enough by considering how well it HARMONIZES with the prior evidence and hypotheses.
That's the ONLY rational approach to determine what ideas are worth accepting as one's beliefs, remembering that one MUST be willing to reject it all IF more-compelling evidence is presented.
Will Atwill's ideas carry the day? I doubt it: his thesis requires SUCH a mastermind conspiracy that ignores existing evidence (eg the conventional pre-dating of Paul's letters which predate the writing of the Gospels) that EVEN IF Atwill presents a signed confession from the Flavians confessing to inventing Christ, it STILL would require independent evaluation of the document by experts to rule out the possibility that it's an ancient forgery. There's other scholars who've presented their findings, so accepting Atwill's claim at face-value alone would require modifying/discarding MOUNTAINS of scholarship. I wouldn't count on it happening, and being that he's an author with a book to sell to the layman (profitting off the Dan Brown story of blending conspiracy theories with the Early Church), I'm highly skeptical of his claims. The old saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies to EVERYTHING, not just to claims we want to reject, but even to claims we're most prone to ACCEPT.
HOWEVER, the fact remains that the conventional narrative offered by the RCC of how the Gospels came to be penned is ludicrious, and no serious historian or NT scholar accepts it as truth: not even believers who operate within the mainsteam of Bible scholarship think that the RCC model of Divine Inspiration of their accounts, penned by the actual apostles, is believable, since it's easily disproven with verifiable literary-critical evidence that is available to anyone.
Adam
(eg allowing Bible passages when it suits her examples, but then dismissing Bible passages or interpretations which don't)
And yet, this is exactly what you do.
What do you think these mean:
"I am the Truth."
"If you really know me, you will know my Father as well."
"You do not know me or my Father," he replied. "If you knew me you would know my Father as well."
"No one comes to the Father except through me."
"You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, but you refuse to come to me to have life."
"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him." (said in the presence of Moses and Elijah - law and prophets; but of the three present - Moses, Elijah, and Christ - God said to listen to His Son)
Peace,
tammy
TEC, many of us have explained that your "just listen to his voice" parrot mantra is simply useless and meaningless advice (verbal self-stimulation), since you're simply begging the question. You're stuck in a verbal tic, a form of palilalia.
Why do you persist in it, even AFTER many of us have explained to you WHY it's such utterly useless advice? Heck, even telling people not to accept wooden nickels would be actually somewhat more worthwhile (but nebulous) advice: why don't you use that one for awhile?
Adam
You know you totally ignore Christ in all of your conclusions, right?
Your response above is a total deflection. You don't have to hear His voice to be able to read the above verses. So you are once again ignoring Him (and all that is written about Him) to be able to continue with your own conclusions.
Peace,
tammy
