Did the Resurrection really happen?

by thinker 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  RWC

  Bean,

  As a person who professes to be a Christian, I will agree with you that some of the worst events in our history have happened in the name of religion. But just because someone uses the name of God when he engages in a violent act, doesn't make that act the will of God, nor does it make the act a true representation of the religion. Just listen to all of the Muslims today telling us that the Koran doesn't teach that people should fly into buildings. The fact that a nut thinks that it does is not an indictment of the religion, but of that person.

  Chrisitanity doesn't teach bigotry, racism, or to be hypocritical, yet people who profess to be Christian sometimes are. Does that mean that Christianty is wrong or the person? Roman Catholic priests who prey on children are sick people who should not be representing the church, but what condems the church is its response, not the actions of a few.

  The message of Jesus was clear. Love each other as Christ loved us. Forgive each other and you will be forgiven. It is very simple.

  The debate about the Trinity, etc.. does not make that message any less clear. Within the realm of orthodox Christianity there is room for differing opinions about details that do not destory the ultimate message. The JWs are not what I would consider to be orthodox christianity so their differences are outside that realm.

  The miracles that Jesus performed when he was walking the earth were not just for those who witnessed them. They were preserved for the ages. We know about them becuase they were.

  As for the Bible not being trustworthy, I would suggest that you study the history of the Canonization process and the evidence of the sources we have to make valid translations. Of all of the ancient texts, the Bible is the most documented book in history. For example, ther are over five thousand New Testmanet Creek manuscripts, compared to only 650 of the Illiad. These New Testmant transcripts are as old as 150 A.D. As for the illiad, the earlist manuscript is over 1000 years after it was originally written. With that many copies of the New Testment writings preserved today, ther is no way that the RCC could have changed the writings to fit their needs ( As the JW did). We would know the difference and it wouoldn't have stood the test of time. As for the old testament, simply refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls where there are almost complete books of every book in the Old Testament. Only discoverd in the forties, the RCC could not have had any influence over these writings.

  God Bless you in your search.
• 

  Panda

  Bean, My ststements were not aimed at you. They were aimed at the dogmatic Christians. Anyway, Since you are studying this subject in depth try The Golden Bough.
  In your studies have you read any books by Robin Lane Fox? He wrote Pagans and Christians, Alexander the Great, and my favorite The Unauthorized Version. The Unauthorized Version discusses whether or not we have a complete text in the Bible, Is it consistent throughout? When was it written and by who? Honestly this is a serious book of research and you will find yourself picking it up frequently.
• 

  thinker

  More strange coincidences:
  The Babylonians observerved certain enumerated days- the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th days of the month. They called these days "SABATTU". Did the idea of a seventh day of rest, a "SABBATH", come from the days when the Jews were held captive in Babylon?

  Also, the Babylonians made the whole sky a stage for their mythological imagination. The evening (or morning) star, later called the planet Venus -the brightest heavenly object next to the sun and moon- became a luminous lion roaming the sky from east to west. The great god El, jealous of so bright and high-rising luminary, put the lion to death again at every dawn. The Old Testament has a very similar story at Isa. 14:12-14.
  Jesus is also refered to as "the morning star" in Rev. Jesus (according to some interpretations) also appears as a lion in Rev.

  The literal translation of "babylon" (Bab-ilani) means "door of the gods". Jesus refered to himself as "the door" in the gospels.

  Strange isn't it?
• 

  Bleep

  The questioning of Lazereth being dead and brought back to live is in the bible allready. You cant take it out. He was dead along time and then when asked what it was like being dead he must have had a good time flying around being a spirit. Or maybe he was sleeping before he was called out of the grave?
• 

  Satanus

  The vast majority of christians claim to believe in a spirit body that survives the death of the physical. The spiritual body has everthing it needs for continued existence in the spirit realm. Dragging around a body composed of earth elements in that plane makes about as much sense as someone someone carrying a space suit around everywhere he goes, day in day out. The idea that it was necessary for jesus' physical body to be resurrected is ludicrous.

  SS
• 

  JanH

  The reference to "faith" is in many ways the last line of defence for the true believer. These defence lines goes through many stages from the cocksure assertions that their religious beliefs is proven beyond doubt, so common among JWs and other fundamentalists, all the way down to saying "we gotta have faith."

  Rhetorically, a reference to "faith" finds resonnance with most believers. But what, exactly, is "faith"? In Greek, and indeed many modern languages, there is no distinction between "belief" and "faith." English has retained this archaic word for belief, and today it is reserved for religious beliefs. So, in effect saying that "you need faith" is equivalent to saying "you need to believe." This begs the question: why, pray tell, do people need belief? What makes faith a credible or desirable quality? Does this mean that anything and everything should be believed, or is this limited to some ideas only?

  I think most people, even the most ardently religious, will agree that there are forms of belief that are not desirable. Christians will say that faith in Allah or Vishnu, or ancient deities like Zevs, Odin or Ba'al, is not only undesirable but outright evil. And in the same way, believers in Allah may argue that faith in the Christian God is highly undesirable. And most people today will agree that belief in the tenets of certain totalitarian philosophies, like Nazism, is extremely undesirable and evil.

  So what makes faith in God, or even the particular God of Christuianity, a positive quality? By answering "you need to have faith" or along such lines, you simply assert that the belief is correct, without any supporting arguments whatsoever. You could just as well support belief in Ba'al, Nazism or invisible green unicorns, using the same slogan.

  Why does the word "faith" have such a good sound in the western hemisphere? Obviously, because through centuries of Christian propaganda, this word has been reverred as the highest of virtues.

  When Christianity was new, this new religion met with opposition and skepticism. Claiming that an executed criminal had been resurrected and was indeed Divine, was obviously beyond what many would accept. While we should not exeggarate the skepitcal climate of the day, it is not a stretch to assume that many people asked the Christians for some evidence supporting this extraordinary claim. Christians had no such things. So, as part of their preaching, they argued that being skeptical, being a doubter, was inheritently sinfull, and that faith -- indeed, blind faith -- was the noblest of virtues.

  So, what happened was that a religion made gullability the highest of virtues. And this continues to this day. Only, this obvious fact is hidden behind the word "faith."

  One amazing example of how doubt was villified, we find in the story about Thomas the doubter. Apparently alone among the disciplies, Thomas proclaimed that he needed more than the claims of more or less hysterical believers to accept this extraordinary claim. He would, he proclaimed, believe if he received evidence. Would not any sane person have reacted in the same way? And indeed, in this story, Jesus accepts the challenge, and proves to Thomas's satisfaction that he is the resurrected Christ. Alas, here we find Jesus (John 20:29) ruining the whole store by making an outragously stupid conclusion: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

  In other words, the Jesus of John blessed blind superstitious faith and repudiated sound skepticism.

  No doubt this literary product was created as an attempt to answer those who did not accept these supernatural claims, and especially to discourage any form of critical thinking among Christians.

  And indeed, this rejection of rational thinking has been a hallmark of Christianity ever since. Luckily, or we would certainly not have anything resembling civilization today, the stranglehold of faith over reason has been fought back and greatly reduced.

  Yet, we still hear people assert that "we must have faith."
• 

  Farkel

  Jan,

  Very well done!

  : Yet, we still hear people assert that "we must have faith."

  "If you have faith only the size of a mustard grain, you still have too damn much." - Farkel 14:7, NAT (New Apostate's Translation)

  Farkel
• 

  IslandWoman

  Jan,

  Though we may be on different sides of the "God" issue, I applaud what you just wrote!!!!!

  It was so very good!!

  "Faith" is IMO, anti God!

  For me, this has been the best post I have ever read on any xJW site!

  Thank You!

  IW
• 

  JanH

  IslandWoman,

  For me, this has been the best post I have ever read on any xJW site!

  Wow. Thank you.

  Farkel,

  "If you have faith only the size of a mustard grain, you still have too damn much." - Farkel 14:7, NAT (New Apostate's Translation)

  LOL. I have always preferred your "revised" version to the original!

  Edited by - JanH on 9 June 2002 21:55:37
• 

  Wendy

  Jan,

  Sweet! I am saving that

  wendy