I have so. You have answered none of mine. You are an interrogator, not a debater.
Jesus as Manager and Founder of Christianity
by jgnat 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Cygnus
Um, Jesus was a Jew and followed the law covenant (missing not a jot or tittle) and so were his disciples. Paul started what we know as Christianity, well at least the epistles attributed to him.
-
jgnat
Cygnus, he kept breaking the Sabbath.
-
Cygnus
The Son of God has that perogative, doesn't he? Anyway, we just have the gospels' account that he did, and they are so contradictory I put little trust in them.
-
Shining One
Jgnat,
You make ridiculous statements! Jesus broke the sabbath?????? This is why you have no business trying to teach anyone any Bible truths. How could He fulfil the law completely sinless and then break the sabbath? Perhaps if you would just admit that you have no 'leg to stand on' regarding your arbitrary 'worship' of Jesus as God, I would quit interrogating you! You are in a logical trap and you refuse to admit it. You started this when you decided to smear all evangelicals for doing what Jesus has called all Christians to do. Your own comments are not the result of honest error, you are intentionally disobedient of valid scriptural commands, in their proper context. You disobey because you don't agree with the commands.
"If you love me you will be obedient." Do you remember that one?
Rex -
Shining One
Cygnus,
In what way are the gospels contradictory? Please do enlighten us.
Rex -
jgnat
Jesus broke the Sabbath on two occassions. His disciples grabbed some grain from the field, and he healed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees called him on it, and he replied that the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath. In other words, God can ride over these other rules any time he wants. Because he's God. What bible are you reading?
-
jgnat
OSO: What do you use as a basis ... to judge an argument to be senseless...?
Me: Two things; will the conclusion argument lead to some fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, etc.... or, if the debaters do not agree on what constitutes a "reasoned" argument. An example of the first would be, "how many angels dance on the head of a pin." And example of the second would be an argument between two people who can't agree on what "rational rules of debate" entails.
____________________________
OSO: You cannot be using the 'law of love' since you deny the infallibility of the scriptures that contain the guideline!
Me: Why not? I believe that the life of Christ, his purpose, his teachings have survived to present day fairly intact, through every generation of believers who have transferred their faith . I believe in the 'law of love'. Just because I am a contradiction in your worldview does not mean I can't exist.
_______________________________
Me: Christ raised the law beyond a set of rules for behavior.
OSO: This is exactly the scripture I am referring to. The reason that the civil and sacrificial law is no longer a requirement is the advent and crucixtion of Christ, you should know that.
Me: And yet you continue to slavishly hold on to other random guidelines, even though Christ overrode them. You also pick and choose which scriptures to obey and which to ignore.
______________________________
OSO: Again, if you deny scripture in the first place...ME: I don't deny the scripture, just it's godhood. I can use my critical powers of discernment when measuring one scripture against the other. Why else did God give me a brain?
OSO then do you not put yourself in grave danger to attempt to teach others what is correct and incorrect, according to scripture?
ME: Accuracy, correctness, incorrectness, these are all vain chasing after wind. JW's do it. Apparently you do as well. You have somehow convinced yourself that if you could just interpret each scripture correctly, no error is possible. Correctness is a judgement call. You have come to a place where you think you have obtained perfect correctness. I have not. I don't think you can as well. It's just too neat a world where you can judge those who do not correctly interpret the bible as you do to be from Satan.
You will see that when I talk about my worldview, I am careful to explain that this is my thinking on the matter. I'm only one brain, after all.
______________________________
OSO: Yet you make fun of 'evangelicals', even deride them for trying to reach those who may be lost!
ME: That is a sweeping statement, and untrue. I make fun of you. I don't think you represent all evangelicals. I don't think you are 'reaching' anyone here. You are ripping them for having legitimate questions.
______________________________
OSO: The 'law of love' is based soley on Old Testament teachings.
ME: Proof, please. Also, when did you assume I would not quote from the Old Testament?
______________________________OSO: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,17.so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
ME: ...and how does this lead to defending the Flood? I see this quote as an example of how scripture can be useful for instruction on living, not in the science classroom. The OT can sometimes be instructive as a bad example, as in, how bloody mankind can get if he isn't constrained by civilization.
______________________________OSO: yet I would be willing to bet that there are teachings of Paul (who always referenced Old Testament!) that you deny as well, right?
ME: I've mentioned a few, if interpreted literally, can cause much anguish. Head-covering, slavery, and wife-beating. That doesn't mean I deny Paul, only that all scripture has to be examined against the over-riding law of love.
______________________________
OSO: You are putting too much faith in man's reasoning ability and not is God's word.
ME: I put faith in my reasoning ability to interpret the bible. That is all. God did not create intelligent beings to be robots. We are supposed to think these great questions through on our own.
-
Cygnus
In what way are the gospels contradictory? Please do enlighten us.
Oh my goodness, are you that chosenly ignorant?
"Then go quickly and tell his disciple 'He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see him'...Now the eleven apostles went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them." - Matt 28:7,16 RSV
"Now in that same day two of tme were returning from Emmaus , about seven miles from Jerusalem...Jesus himself came ner and went with them.. So he went in and stayed with them.. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together."
So which was it, Galilee or Jerusalem?
also..
A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14)
eh, but never mind, I'm not interested in answering point by point... you just keep on believing, Rex.
-
Shining One
>Oh my goodness, are you that chosenly ignorant?
"Then go quickly and tell his disciple 'He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see him'...Now the eleven apostles went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them." - Matt 28:7,16 RSV
"Now in that same day two of tme were returning from Emmaus , about seven miles from Jerusalem...Jesus himself came ner and went with them.. So he went in and stayed with them.. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together."
>So which was it, Galilee or Jerusalem?
The second passage (that you failed to note) is from Mark 16.7. It is part of the context beginning after the resurrection. Ignorance is not a excuse that I have in this case.
Mark 14:28. But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
That was Jesus' instructions to the disciples. The disciples lack of faith made them slow to act on these words; they did not leave for Galilee until Jesus had repeatedly appeared to them in Jerusalem. Any first year seminary student with a half decent study Bible can figure this one out.
>also..
A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
Ha ha ha, is it YET dark just at the 'rising of the sun'? Where did you get this 'contradiction'?
>B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
You are talking about eyewitness accounts, each one is complimentary in their information. Each gospel is written for a different audience and a different perspective, as well. Complimentary information is not a contradiction, this is why a prosecutor would rather have a circumstancial case than a crime witnessed by several persons....
>C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
Again, a complimentary passage written by two different writers from two different sources. None of this affects the 'infallibility' of scripture, some might read it to affect the 'inerrancy' depending on the research done by each person. The bottom line is that this does not affect the story within the text. This is where the ignorant skeptic doing internet research consistently fails.
>D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
Ditto, these are descriptions from different sources. What you do not realize that wherever the gospels are almost word for word, that is used to throw doubt on them, wherever they expand and give different details that is used to throw doubt on them! Which way is it going to be?
>E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
Ditto
>F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
Ditto
>G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14)
Ditto again! NONE of this affects the veracity of the story. Even the radical libs within Christianity confirm this. An unbiased history professor could also tell you this. You have already decided that you will not believe, therefore you search for excuses not to believe. I could give you study references but that seems to be useless with so many of you here.
>eh, but never mind, I'm not interested in answering point by point...
That's obvious. The differences in the gospels are actually a major part of the evidence for the veracity and believability of the texts! That and the fact that the people who claimed to witness these events went to their deaths without recanting. If they were all lying they would not have done that, they would simply have shut up and the story never would have been told, there would be no Christianity to debate.
>you just keep on believing, Rex.
I will do just that. I could logically do no other! LOL
Rex