Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

by Watchtower-Free 223 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kassad84

  Point being, God CLEARLY commanded his people to stay away from foreigners, so they were only following orders. It's why most orthodox Jews are STILL reluctant to even TALK to shiksa (Gentile) women, since it might lead to temptation to sin and marriage. Jesus was breaking tradition by daring to talk to a shiksa, but he was playing with temptation by doing so.

  I don't think forbidding marriage vs not interacting/staying away from foreigners are the same thing. You can surely interact with them, treating them kindly as you treat any other. Marrying or not marrying foreigners does not prevent that. Remember God reminded them that once they were foreigners as well, so I am sure they are very much familiar how they were treated then (in Egypt), and now how they would like to treat other "foreigners". The problem IMO is man's interpretation of the scripture. (which I admit IMO is very tricky, you definitely need to know the CONTEXT) In the gospels, the Pharisees was an example of a group taking a certain commandment and interpreting it to rule every aspect of everyday life, even the most trivial things, ultimately denying what was essentially important:

  16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

  23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. - Matthew 23

  The WTS and other organizations comes to mind in the modern day.
• 

  paranoia agent

  bytheirworks wrote :

  Paranoia agent is very confused & deluded.

  I don’t know therefore I have no reason to believe.

  That is the craziest thing you have said yet. Not knowing... is to immediately have a reason to believe.

  People believe when they DO NOT know. They have no choice.

  They will either believe for something or believe against something... but by definition, you can only believe when you don't know.

  In fact, it is only when one doesn't know, that's when you ABSOLUTELY HAVE a reason to believe.

  There is no need to be rude, I am sure we can discuss this like adults. I was pointing out the principals of logic you were applying in regards to negatives, that you do not seem to understand the principles.

  Again you are presupposing that deities/Jesus/Jehovah exist, the old god of the gaps argument, the 'I don't know therefore god'. Why god? why not multiple gods or pagan gods?

  By definition yes belief can be based on the unknown, I can believe that magic teapots float around Saturn and that flying pink unicorns exist, but this argument is a strawman because I never argued that I have beliefs in the same that are like 'I don't know if I have a lost twin brother, therefore I believe or 'I do not know if I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage, therefore I believe' or I don't know <insert here>, therefore I believe'. So is it really that crazy??

  Have a great day.
• 

  tec

  Nobody has asserted that they can prove Jesus didn't exist have they?

  Yes. The man who prompted this thread - Atwill - has made this statement.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  dqFreedom

  This Just IN: AIR doesn't EXIST Feel Free to stop Breathing!

  This Thread Should Have Been DELETED after the FIRST Post!
• 

  slimboyfat

  Just watched another excellent talk by Richard Carrier (if you don't mind the swearing) about how the book of Acts indicates that Christianity is based on a spiritual rather than a historical Jesus figure:

  www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw

  Very interesting discussion of the speech by Stephen in Acts 7, which is "the longest speech anywhere in the Bible".
• 

  cofty

  I would like to hear a bible believing christian replying to Richard Carrier. His evidence is very compelling.
• 

  slimboyfat

  There's a youtube video of a discussion between Carrier and Mark Goodacre that's quite good.

  And there's a debate between Richard Carrier and William Lane Craig that many seem to think WLC won. But I can't stand to watch WLC, it's such superficial nonsense delivered with insufferable smugness.
• 

  tec

  SBF, did you link it earlier in the thread? I am not a 'bible-beleiving-christian'... but I am a person of faith in Christ.

  I don't often like debates... they don't always fully explore that which they are debating. But I could look.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  paranoia agent

  The same Richard Carrier who misquoted Bart Ehrman in saying that jesus didn't exist? Richard tends to use a lot of confirmation bias, I also have little patience from the free thought blog cult.
• 

  adamah

  kassad said-

  I don't think forbidding marriage vs not interacting/staying away from foreigners are the same thing. You can surely interact with them, treating them kindly as you treat any other. Marrying or not marrying foreigners does not prevent that.

  Perhaps "kindly", like in the account of Dinah's brothers, who promised to allow a foreign prince to marry their sister (and to intermarry with other Shechemites, forming familial alliances) on the condition that all of their men get circumcised first? Then when the men of the town complied, her brothers exploited their incapacitated state after circumcision to murder all the able-bodied men, take their women, child, herds, possessions, etc?

  Is that what you meant when you said they should "treat them kindly, as you treat any other"?

  That's the first account of attempted intermarriage, and it occurs in the narrative long BEFORE Dueteronomic Code is handed down (and hence the tale likely serves as justification, an explanation of WHY the later code and policy forbidding mixing with foreigners is a good idea).

  Remember God reminded them that once they were foreigners as well, so I am sure they are very much familiar how they were treated then (in Egypt), and now how they would like to treat other "foreigners".

  Yes, the Hebrews were ones to learn lessons from others like that.

  You are seemingly unaware that one of the ironies of history is that after the Jews were taken captive and forced into slavery by the Babylonians (after destroying the First Temple circa 587 BC) the Jews were ALSO among the World's first benefactors of the World's first-ever anti-slavery law, thanks to their liberation from Babylon by the Persian Empire (with it's Zoroasterian beliefs) after they marched into Babylon as victors.

  As a result, the Jewish captives forced into slavery were freed and allowed to return to Jerusalem to establish self-rule (under the hegemony of the Persian Empire, of course), since Ahuru Mazda (Zoroasterian's deity) condemned the concept of one human owning another. However, when the Persians were later defeated by the Greeks, the Jews quickly took up the practice of slavery again, picking up right where they'd left off, buying foreign slaves.

  Hence Jesus had no problem using slaves in his parables some 500 yrs later, and slavery persisted in the World for what, almost two more millenia more until secular men finally realized the Bible wasn't such a great source of morality?

  The problem IMO is man's interpretation of the scripture. (which I admit IMO is very tricky, you definitely need to know the CONTEXT)

  That's classic Christian excusiology (TEC's old "lying scribes" excuse), which would require ignoring the ENTIRE Tanakh, and the recorded history of the Hebrews for what, 1,500 years BEFORE Jesus arrived on the scene? See, that's the problem with trying to hijack the religion of the Jews to base your own roots: you also have to accept the baggage, since you want to co-opt the ancient God, Jehovah, yet you'll have to cherry-pick which facts you're willing to accept.

  Whether you admit it or not, JWs are feeding its members a sanitized depiction of Hebrew history and culture, and you actually have to remain ignorant of actual historical context (as revealed by archaeological findings, ancient steles, physical culture, etc).

  That's why when you make statements like this:

  Please note these commandments were WAY ahead of their time if you compare them with other nations living in that area. Wars and violence were the norm then (well, not much have changed, it still is now).

  I'm calling BS. You clearly haven't read ANY other contempory legal codes that existed in the region, or you'd know better.

  If you're interested in researching the topic, I'd recommend Pamela Barmash's work (she's a lawyer who does scholarly work in historical legal codes, and she's studied and compared the Deuteronomic Code to other laws of the Ancient Near East, eg Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc). She'd disagree with your assessment.

  You're not a JW anymore, so you have no excuse to remain ignorant or repeat the nonsense you were taught by the JWs: do yourself a favor and learn what the historical evidence actually indicates about Hebrew life, i.e. read some introduction to the history you never learned by reading some Devers, Finkelstein, Elaine Pagels, etc, etc.

  Adam