by ilikecheese 29 Replies latest jw friends
I have already shown you how it is baseless; even dictionary definitions do not agree with you
No you haven't and yes they do.
Jesus said that Abraham Isaac and Jacob were already alive in his day. "He is is a god not of the dead but of the living".
In the same way, spirit mediums claim to receive messages from people who have suffered physical death but who are alive in the spirit like Abraham and Jesus.
You are a spirit medium.
I would suggest that you re-read my post, bottom of the first page. Because being alive and being a spirit (as God is, as angels are, as Christ is)... is not the same symoblic thing that you are trying to pass it off as being. Christ is ALIVE. Same as God. Same as angels. I doubt you would also say that someone who hears from an angel is a spirit-medium, as countless people do in the bible. Or that someone who hears from God is a spirit-medium. Neither is someone who hears from Christ.
Peace,
tammy
Jesus said Abraham was alive. Do you know better than him?
Passing on messages from the spirit world is to be a spirit medium.
Embrace it.
*sigh*
You know as well as I do, that your accusation is desperate and baseless. So continue this on your own. I am done. Apologies to the OP for participating in this derailment.
Peace,
tammy
I am a Christian, but it's pretty hard to reconcile the two parts if you don't drop the "it's infallible" idea. - ilikecheese
To hold to the infallibility of scripture is to embrace an ethical standard that would embarrass an Afghan warlord. The ethics of the NT are no better unless you cherry-pick the bits you like.
Nobody gets their morality from the bible. They bring their ethics to the book in search of confirmation.
Growing up JW, I was taught that man didn't really write the Bible, men were more like secretaries, jotting down what God told them to write. And indeed many religions take it that way. Whole religious doctrines can be based on and inferred from the wording of verses. Even things such as "was god" or "was A god".
So when you read the bible, it brings up many questions. The actions of god, the actions of the people he chooses to like, the discrepancies. You have a few choices to choose from:
Nobody set out to write a "bible". The bible is made up of the writings of many people, later assembled into an anthology long afterwards. The same is true of both the old and new testaments. So, one could say that one book might fall into one of the categories above and another book into another. And a lot of the power of the "message" comes from the anthology committee.
So it leaves a puzzle. What books fall into which category? I think there's enough evidence to show they all don't fall into the first category.
So how do we know what to believe? What do we keep? What do we discard? That's kind of up to the believer. People will believe the things they want to believe and pick the things that go along with their preconceived notions.
And that is not only the case of the old testament, but the new as well. How did Judas die? Was Jarius's daughter already dead when he came to Jesus? Did John knew Jesus was the messiah? How did Simon Peter hear Jesus was the messiah? From a human or not by flesh and blood? Was Joseph's (Mary's husband) father Jacob or Heli?
If the bible was written by men alone, why should we trust it at all? Why is it any more valid than any other religious text? Say, the book of mormon? If the bible is faulty, how do we know Jesus even existed or performed any miracles?
The new testament also gives credit to the old testament. Jesus was the fulfillment of it and Jesus quoted from it. So if you don't take the old testament seriously, how can you take the new testament seriously either? I really don't understand believers who can dismiss the uncomfortable things of the old testament but still embrace the new and still believe in Jesus. The new testament is the sequel to the old and if the old is BS...
If there is a god, and this is isn't his book, what is? If he didn't write one, why not? Why did he create us and then leave us be? If this is at least somewhat his book, why did he not orchestrate it better? Like the JWs believe, why did he not author every word and make things crystal clear so that there is only one religion, not hundreds? If you blame the errors on scribes, why did god with all his mighty power allow this to happen? Knowing that one day those writings would make it into the final cut for his anthology, you'd think he'd do better. He can create billions of planets and stars in a day, but can't oversee a few scribes or dispatch a few angels to oversee them to make sure they're copying it correctly?
Because in the end, if people don't believe his book because of all the issues with it, who's to blame? God would be. So are people deserving of judgement if his book is so full of holes that people don't believe in it?
These are things you will have to think over. You have already started to think about parts of the bible and your eyes have been opened. It might be a scary thought, but you may not even believe in Jesus anymore if you keep pursuing this. You have to decide though, whether you want to continue believing in comforting stories and fables, or keep investigating and keep thinking. It may lead you away from your faith.
Good luck.
Oh, no, yet another assertion contrary to both scripture and common sense. Jesus talks, no one walks........old Barney's commercial. Well, at least some things remain stable. Oh, those evil scribes.
Growing up JW, I was taught that man didn't really write the Bible, men were more like secretaries, jotting down what God told them to write.
Some books are similar to this. Some things were given from God to someone (like the creation story and such; no one who was there wrote those stories; someone learned the truth of them later, and told/wrote what they heard). Or like the Psalms which contain prophecy, or Isaiah, though it starts out stating that Isaiah had been given a vision.
In the books of the prophets, the prophet will state that he was "in the spirit" or... "the word of the LORD came to me/him"... and then describe what he heard and saw while in the spirit, or whatever he heard. For example: The word of the LORD came to me saying; or from John in Revelation, ... On the Lord's Day, I was in the Spirit. These books are inspired (in spirit). He (the prophet or the one who heard) might have then had a scribe write down what he heard and saw, or perhaps write of it himself (which writing has of course gone through mulitple copying, much time, and various translation choices).
Some books are simply a recording of Israelite history (perhaps slanted in their favor at times). Some books are simply letters (like Paul's letters). Some books are from investigation, like the book of Luke... who states that 'he carefully INVESTIGATED all things'. His book was not inspired, ie: not given to him via the Spirit. He investigated to write an orderly report for Theopholus (who his book is written TO).
But obviously, God communicated via spirit to those who had the faith to hear Him; otherwise there would have been nothing TO write, to begin with, from the prophets and those who shared what they had been given/what they heard. Christ - who is the Spirit - communicates the same.
Oh, no, yet another assertion contrary to both scripture and common sense. Jesus talks,
Band, if you comment was referring to Christ speaking as being against scripture, then you might want to take a look at the following passages. Because when you say things like that, and i don't know if you truly believe your own criticism or if you are simply going with a certain crowd and repeating things they like to say, you are one who is contradicting what is written. Contradicting what the apostles and disciples experienced and what Christ taught, himself.
He states himself,
"My sheep will hear my voice."
"I have other sheep that are not of this sehep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
You (and others) who profess to be Christian may want to believe that is figurative. That is your perogative. But what do you do then with specific examples of the Spirit speaking, just as He said He would?:
- The entire book of Revelation of course. The Revelation given to John, who was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.
- Then there is the warning from 1John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits (or the inspired expressions, depending upon translation) to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Test what... if there is no Spirit that can speak?
- There is of course Paul on the road to Damascus:
As he (Saul) neared Damascus on his journy, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am (Jesus), whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
And:
In Damascus there was a disciple named Nananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"
"Yes, Lord," he answered.
The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."
"Lord," Ananaias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."
But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go. This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
Not only did Ananias hear the Lord, we are given an example of him having a conversation with the Lord. The living and speaking Christ, who is the Spirit.
- Then of course, there is Peter's vision about Cornelius, and the Spirit speaking to him afterward:
While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."
- And another for Paul:
One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because i hve many people in this city."
- And one of Philip:
Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road - the desert road - that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he started out and on his way he met an Ethiopian euncuh, and important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalm to worship and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
And what of this:
The Spirit and the bride SAY, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!"
You can believe whatever you want of course. But do not fool yourself into thinking that it is you who is following what is written, including what Christ is recorded to have said. Because He said He would speak. That the Spirit would lead us into all truth, remind us of all things, tell us of what is to come. And we have multiple examples of Him doing just that, in what is written. So why are you contradicting Him in stating that He does not speak?
May you be given ears to hear if you wish them, that you may also hear as the Spirit and the bride say to you, as I also say to you,
"Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"
Peace to you, as my Lord gives peace.
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
KateWild: " My favourite scrpture to keep me critically thinking is 1Cor 14.34,35 talks about women keeping silent, it makes me puke. It is in all translations known to me. It's sick."
The one in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is worse, in my opinion:
"Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression."
Verse 14 implies that women are inherently more gullible than men as exemplified by Eve being decieved while Adam was not. It is essentially saying that women aren't as mentally competent as men to hold positions of authority. What glaring sexism! In verse 13 the writer says that the male gender was created before the female gender and that's implied to be a reason why men should have authority and women shouldn't - seriously! It's almost as if the writer was desperately reaching for petit excuses to justify sexism.
And don't forget to check out the load of anti-Cretan bigotry at Titus 1:12,13:
"A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: “Cre′tans are always liars, injurious wild beasts, unemployed gluttons.”
13 This witness is true. For this very cause keep on reproving them with severity, that they may be healthy in the faith,"
The Bible is just wrong in so many instances, and is not "right" where it should be , if god is really Love.
I think it is easy to make the mistake of not reading these very ancient texts properly.
To understand them , we have to know the circumstances they were written in, and by whom if possible, and what the Mores and Ethics of his time were, we need to know the motive for writing, somtimes the political situation, or situation that existed in the Church or Kingdom at the time, and much more.
Having said that, it is still possible to see misogyny, and scant regard for Human Rights, and other attitudes that we know to be totally wrong in the 21st Century, in stark evidence within the writing.
With the start that Jesus gave to giving women a proper place, why does Paul kick that in to touch ?
Why does God not guide his writers to at least come close to the Moral standard we hold to in the 21st Century ? The BIble's standard and guidance is way, way below ours.
Could it be that these writings are simply by men of their times, with an Agenda for their time , and are hence at least two thousand years out of date ?
