when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
J. Your own responses were sarcastic, catty, and generally unpleasant. I won't waste my time any more on that.
Bohm and his childish namecalling.
And the general condescension of posters. I don't have to put up with it, especially since I really meant nothing other than to start a discussion on a central point of Christianity amongst unbelievers.
Anyway, I'm done.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
ATJ, thank you for your response. You still seem to be judging my motives. That's OK. I started this thread trying to get information that could help better understand those that do not believe Christianity. WHat I have gotten in return is name-calling, insults and condescension. Now, I will admit that I did respond to some of the more silly postings, but I attempted to do so in a respectful manner, unlike some of the posters that have responded to me. Hey, that's OK. I understand their insecurity.
Anyway, I have seen enough of the non-responses to see that there really is not reason to not believe in the resurrection, at least no "reason" that has been given here.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
AllTimeJeff said:
My point is, you won't consider contrary evidence, so why should I consider the bible (again) for the 20th time?
Well, I have yet to see any contrary evidence. All I have read here is unsubstantiated assertions and name-calling when people's silly arguments are exposed.
Secondly, I am not asking anyone to consider the bible. I am asking for evidence against the resurrection. I don't think I can be any clearer, but if someone can help me make this clear to the free-thinkers and "brights" on this board then please assist.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
Well Bohm, sticks and stones....
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
Smiddy said:
If christianity is so important to the salvation of mankind,and the resurrection is a core doctrine,then why is God (and or) jesus just interested in giving this" so important" information to a handfull of people in a minority religous sect in the middle east,then leaving it up to imperfect human beings to decipher,debate,question, it all for 2000 years .
Some things just don`t add up
You are right it doesn't add up that this event which occured in a cultural backwater, to a handfull of what we would view as "rubes" would change the world in less than 300 years. Yes, it just doesn't add up.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
Bohm said:
Sufficient/extraordinary is just wordplay.
I agree. folks on your side of the debate don't seem to know what you want, when your own words are flipped on you. Hence the verbose backpedaling in the rest of your post.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
Prodigal Son: Actually it was noticed by a number of ancient historians, Josephus being one. Now, I'm sure you'll bring up the interpolations, and fortunately non-Christian scholars have been able to determine what statements in Josephus about Jesus were added, and what were original. In what is deemed as original, there is no contradiction with the gospels.
The resurrection on the third day comes from older myths
You are still believing this nonsense? There is no evidence, whatso ever, that the resurrection story was borrowed from any pre-Christian myths. They aren't even close. Sadly, this lie continues to be perpetrated by ignorant or lazy skeptics.
J. Hofer: I will only respond to this point. Your other points are mocking, and are not fit for a response.
extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. a resurrection is extraordinary.
Really? If I make the claim that I won the lottery, an extraordinary claim, would I need to provide extraordinary evidence? No I would only need to provide sufficient evidence, the winning ticket. Extraordinary claims require no higher burden of proof than ordinary claims, yet the unbeliever feel impelled to place God in the dock and demand that God jump through hoops that the creation conjures up.
Theycant said:
XJW4EVR, I by no means seek to insult your beliefs or even question them, but your assertion that just because many started to believe in the years following the preaching of Christ and Paul is built on faulty logic because many believed Mohammed's claims, just as they do with the Governing Body or any other (insert false Messiah here). This in itself is not a reason to believe.
I never stated that just because many stated to have seen the risen Jesus is the reason I believe the resurrection account. I said that this must be accounted for as evidence that these believers experienced something, and that the best explanation is the resurrection of Jeus.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
Terry, I find your posts extrememly difficult to read because you do not seem to know how to use paragraphs. While I am sure you have some cogent things to say, I just have a difficult time following your writing style. Nothing personal. Just observing.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
leavingwt said:
I think I understand you, but I still want to be perfectly clear: Do you or do you not believe that the texts we have now are identical to the original texts?
Ehrman's own mentor, Bruce Metzger, stated that the NT was 99.5% textually pure to the original autographs. The reason why this statement can be made is because of the amount of manuscripts, fragments and lectionaries that are extant, over 24,000 of them.
There is a fragment that can be dated to within 29 years of the events they record, and others that can be dated between 130 & 150 years from the events.
Personally, I have very little doubt in the New Testament, but I have plenty of doubts about Bart Ehrman.
when i was a jw, the key issue that caused me to doubt the wt was the trinity.
the wtb&ts's blatent misquotations and misrepresentations of religious scholarship to fit their anti-trinitarian presuppositions are horrid and inexcusable.
that issue, however, was not the issue that caused me to become a christian.
Deist says:
You shouldn't believe in the resurrection because it is just another Greek influenced myth just like the virgin birth of jesus and the divinity of jesus.
Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
Figure it out Christians claim to use the Old Testament basis for their belief, but there is no support for the belief in a virgin birth (supposed to be a maiden) or evidence of the deity of Jesus in the OT.
Again, how did you come to this conclusion?
that is really impressive that Jesus foretold the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE when the first manuscripts were from 300 AD.
True, full manuscripts are dated at 300 AD. The earliest fragments match those later manuscripts. If the manuscripts are forgeries or embellishments, they are really hidden well.
