Posts by opusdei1972

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

Hi James Brown:

The Watchtower Society quoted the scientist R.H. Brown, who is/was an Adventist (may be he is dead) of the Adventist Andrews University , to defend the 6000 years of human creation. I was reading some articles published by R. H. Brown, and I found one in which he commented about the book entitled "THE AGE OF THE EARTH", whose author is G. Brent Dalrymple. Let us read what Brown said:

Dalrymple makes a good case for an age of about 4.5 billion years for the material of which the earth, moon, and meteorites are composed. He evidently believes that he has thoroughly discredited special creationism. His treatment in The Age of the Earth has made it much more difficult to plausibly explain radiometric data on the basis of a creation of the entire Solar System, or the physical matter in planet Earth, within the last few thousand years. In my opinion, the defense of such a position is a losing battle. (Origins 19(2):87-90 (1992).)

Note that Brown, an Adventist, had to admit that the defense of a 6 literal days of creation is "a losing battle". But, what was Brown's argument in favor to 6000 years of man existence?.....Brown said that the Flood changed the concentration of carbon-14 in carbon-12, because before the Flood there was much more carbon-12 on account of the great number of animals in the planet. Accordingly, Brown said that the carbon-14 technique could not give the right dates for fossils before the Flood. However, the global Flood did not happen, so Brown used a false assumption to discredit the radiocarbon dates.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

James Brown: "If there is scientific proof that Adam was not the first man,..."

The scientific proof is based on radiometric dating, dendrochronology (to calibrate radiocarbon technique) and ADN arguments. Modern men were here in this planet 50 000 years ago at least, and if you regard Neanderthals as men, they are much older.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1009371/Neanderthals-the-Latest-News-Year-In-Review-2004

But the Bible says Adam was created 6000 years ago. If there were men before Adam, Adam was not the father of all men. Also, the American man came to America more than 15000 years ago.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

This behavior surprised God; and he asked what was the cause of this his procedure; and why he, that before delighted in that conversation, did now fly from it, and avoid it. When he made no reply, as conscious to himself that he had transgressed the command of God, God said, "I had before determined about you both, how you might lead a happy life, without any affliction, and care, and vexation of soul; and that all things which might contribute to your enjoyment and pleasure should grow up by my providence, of their own accord, without your own labor and pains-taking; which state of labor and pains-taking would soon bring on old age, and death would not be at any remote distance: but now thou hast abused this my good-will, and hast disobeyed my commands; for thy silence is not the sign of thy virtue, but of thy evil conscience." However, Adam excused his sin, and entreated God not to be angry at him, and laid the blame of what was done upon his wife; and said that he was deceived by her, and thence became an offender; while she again accused the serpent. But God allotted him punishment, because he weakly submitted to the counsel of his wife; and said the ground should not henceforth yield its fruits of its own accord, but that when it should be harassed by their labor, it should bring forth some of its fruits, and refuse to bring forth others. He also made Eve liable to the inconveniency of breeding, and the sharp pains of bringing forth children; and this because she persuaded Adam with the same arguments wherewith the serpent had persuaded her, and had thereby brought him into a calamitous condition. He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place. (THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book I)

From the above words of Josephus we may know that Pharisees of the first century believed that Adam was a literal person. So, Paul had to believe it, as shown in his letters.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

The same happened with Adam, before the scientific proofs against his existence, the churches said that he was a literal man, but now their best scholars say : "no, he is the symbol of human being". The same happened with the parouxia, Jesus said it would happen in his generation, but this prophecy failed, then the preterists say now that he truly came back in 70 AD, but invisible. Also, we currently know that the global flood was imposible in 2300 BCE, so christian scholars now have to say that it was local or we must take it as an allegory. Therefore, what I see is that we must allegorize everything to save the Bible.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

I should not call those christians who believe that Adam and Eve existed as fundamentalist, because they are simply believing in what the Genesis account says, and in what Paul also read therefrom. Nothing else!.

This is why I insist in this: If they did not exist, the doctrine of original sin is a lie, and we die because it is our mortal nature, so we don't need Jesus.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18)

So, if this were true, it means that an inocent muslim, who born in "the wrong" country, will be burned in hell, at worse, or will not resurrect at best.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

jgnat: I think Jesus died for his beliefs and thereby inspired a world-spanning religion.

I think so, I respect Jesus because I believe he died for his beliefs, but I think his followers did not respect him when they wrote many words that he did not say.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

jgnat....well, Evangelicals, such as I know them here in Brazil and from webpages, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. ...But I thought you were not a christian, due to some comments I read from you. May be I misunderstood you.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

Hi Cofty:

In your article it seems that the following is your thought (with respect to Paul):

Here again Paul makes the point that death came through Adam. In our natural state, which Paul refers to as being “in Adam”, we are all under condemnation and faced with the certainty of death.

Ok, the Watchtower agrees with you in that point also. Let us read the Catholic view. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

Note that, by removing the soul concept, the Catholic view is just the same as the Watchtower, because without the sin of Adam, our fleshy body would not die (according to this view). So, we have to agree that Paul told us that we all die because Adam sinned. So, a baby born is already condemned "in Adam". Doesn't it ??

Well, so the if Adam did not exist, or if Adam is not the father of all men, Paul was wrong and so the Catholic Church, the Witnesses and all christianity.

64

What christians don't want to admit

by opusdei1972 in

when i left the wt organization, i continued to believe in the bible, so i wanted to confirm and refine, as much as possible, my faith that the true god is in the bible.

so i began to discuss with skilled christians, who were also ex-witnesses.

but i was surprised when some of them tried to relax my fundamentalist position on the literalness of the genesis account.

opusdei1972

As quoted above, Cardinal George Pell says that the account of Adam and Eve is “a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world". However, the early christians, the founders of Christianity ( as the first century jewish too), did not think so. Furthermore, how can the account be a myth and the original sin not?........So, it creates more contradictions in the christian theology. Cardinal Pell can currently say this, but one century ago he would be punished by the Pope. Whatever, I wonder how will they (the catholic theologians) justify this myth?