by slimboyfat 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Tell him that Jesus probably didn't get married or it would have mentioned it in the Bible, but at the same time we can't be 100% sure he didn't get married because it doesn't specifically say he didn't get married.
Stand back watch fireworks.
I thought it was a pretty reasonable thing to say. Pop. Think I might be "bad association" again.
The bible never mentions Jesus or the apostles using the bathroom, so poopers are sinners.
Come to think of it the only mention of relieving ones self was a pagan, was he not?
Come to think of it the only mention of relieving ones self was a pagan, was he not? --
how about david standing back as Saul did his job in a cave with lifted coat tails? cavemen all.
SBF, you winding someone up, I can't believe it ;-).
Wasn't there a book that didn't get canonized named Book of Mary that hints Jesus was married? So those men who actually put the bible together, censored books they didn't agree with. The Governing Body of that time was sneaky also. Too bad they weren't able to make HD videos back then...
Can you give some more details about what happened?
I said I was sure I read it in a Watchtower that he was a normal man only without sin and he could have got married if he wanted to. And that almost all men got married in that culture so it would be unusual if Jesus didn't get married. This did not go down well, to say the least. So I backtracked.
At some point it dawned on me that I had read Bart Ehrman make this argument, not the Watchrower. It's come to something when I mix up Ehrman and the Watchtower!
In the end I said I must have mixed up Jesus with Paul. It's Paul that might have been married, probably not but we can't be sure.
The JW was not impressed at my explanation that I mixed up Jesus with Paul, I'm definitely bad association again. Ah well.
how about david standing back as Saul did his job in a cave with lifted coat tails?
He was "covering his feet, that may mean he was playing with it.
I think he was pretty flustered because he insisted that Jesus would have died on the "cross" for nothing if he was married and only slightly hesitated after the word cross and didn't bother to fix it before making the rest of the argiment.
I think he was pretty flustered because he insisted that Jesus would have died on the "cross" for nothing if he was married and only slightly hesitated after the word cross and didn't bother to fix it before making the rest of the argiment.
I don't follow that line of reasoning at all.
Wasn't there an official WT teaching from some years back about how much of a sacrifice Jesus' death was?
As in, as many on here have posted, it really wasn't much of a sacrifice. 12 hours of torture, 36 hours of death, and then resurrection to glory. Millions if not billions of humans have had far more painful experiences.
So, the WT argument went, Jesus' sacrifice was that he could have fathered a race of perfect children. He could have decided to marry and try to reform human society through his descendants. He was potentially the father to millions of perfect human offspring, who could have transformed human society and even the planet. But that way was not "Jehovah's purpose", so he humbly did it Jehovah's way and made that sacrifice.
Does anyone else remember that? Or am I hallucinating again?
