i keep reading that jehovah's witnesses are in effect monsters.
i keep reading that they kinda leave chaos and distrust in their wake.
so i simply wondered if anyone had anything nice to say about them?.
undercover witless:
However, there are many reasons why I like Jehovah's Witnesses wherever they may be. They know the essential validity of the Bible and from all of the versions of the Bibles, their's is the only one that makes any actual sense.
Their bible may make sense to someone like you, but to those of us who relied on it for years to guide our deceived steps, it is the worst piece of spiritual pornography ever produced.
Enjoy your delusion.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Caedes
Honesty,
You are correct I do not have to fear any of those things because I live in a largely secular country where atheism is not persecuted. Even in my country however we still have to fight to stop religious people from imposing their beliefs on those of us that don't share them. Beliefs that you cannot provide any evidence for.
I am glad that you live in a country where you can practice your belief (or is it more correct to say "disbelief"?) without persecution. Hopefully, your government is able to curtail the activities of religious wackos so you aren't bothered too much by them. Your country sound much like the Czech Republic where atheism is the predominant belief.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Honesty,
The problem is that it is you who is making the claim that jesus was a real person and was resurrected, the burden of proof is on you. I am not making any claim about jesus merely stating that I have seen no evidence to convince me he was real or that he was resurrected.
The problem with your claim about Tacitus is that Tacitus was a meticulous historian and yet he only refers to the title christus not to jesus. His reference is only in relation to giving details of the source of the term Christian. His reference to Pontius Pilate also uses the wrong title for Pontius Pilate he wasn't procurator. The fact that a well respected Roman historian has the correct dates for events pertaining to the Roman empire should be of no surprise. What is a surprise is that he didn't know the name Jesus and didn't know Pontius Pilate's title. Perhaps his source for this small anecdote wasn't very reliable. Either way hardly conclusive evidence for jesus and zero evidence that jesus was resurrected.
I don't have any burden of proof regarding Jesus and i posted information from a Roman historian's point of view.
You can believe Jesus wasn't a real person and therefore wasn't resurrected or not.
No one is going to disfellowship you, figuratively stone you to death or cause you harm in any way no matter what you believe about Jesus unless you are a member of some wacky religious cult.
Your beliefs about Jesus doesn't affect how i should treat you,which is with respect as a fellow human being who is just trying to live your life the best way you see fit like everyone else.
Have a great weekend.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
bohm
I think you have just accepted my original point without being aware of it.
I don't think i ever denied your original point, I just disagreed with your methods of trying to determine if Jesus was resurrected or not.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
I admit I don't have all the answers but that doesn't mean I should accept things for which there is no evidence. If as you say this discussion requires a degree of faith then you have already conceded that your argument is not based on evidence.
The point I am making is that it would be close-minded and foolish to state that you would not be willing to accept that you are wrong if you are presented with empirical evidence that contradicts your beliefs. if you are not prepared to accept that you could be wrong then there isn't a discussion in the first place.
So far you nor anyone else has provided any empirical evidence which proves Jesus was not a real person and was not resurrected.
Furthermore, there are millions of people alive today who experience the presence of Jesus in their everyday lives.
If you or anyone else can provide undeniable, documented proof that Jesus never existed and/or did not experience a resurrection I would be willing to concede that I am wrong.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus (55/56–c. 118 A.D.) was a Roman senator, orator and ethnographer, and arguably the best of Roman historians.
Tacitus’s last major work, titled Annals, written c. 116–117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 A.D., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians. This was the occasion for Tacitus to mention Christians, whom he despised. This is what he wrote:
[N]either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.
Tacitus’s terse statement about “Christus” clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death. Tacitus presents four pieces of accurate knowledge about Jesus:
1. Christus, used by Tacitus to refer to Jesus, was one distinctive way by which some referred to him, even though Tacitus mistakenly took it for a personal name rather than an epithet or title.
2. Christus was associated with the beginning of the movement of Christians, whose name originated from His was executed by the Roman governor of Judea.
3. The time of his death was during Pontius Pilate’s governorship of Judea, during the reign of Tiberius. (Many New Testament scholars date Jesus’ death to c. 29 A.D.
Pilate governed Judea in 26–36 A.D., while Tiberius was emperor from 14–37 A.D.
out of the blue my wife started to ask me about my feeling about the borg.
i told her i didn't want to talk about it...she persisted.
she already knows how i feel, i told her that my biggest beef is that they use mind control, and yep she went in to how i was an apostate and how she doesn't want to be married to an apostate.
So they can't be a witness of Jehovah AND a witness of Jesus?
Please provide a Scripture that says Jesus' apostles claimed to be witnesses of Jehovah?
Why does it matter which name was chosen?
THIS:
Acts 4:11-12
The stone despised by you builders,
who has become the cornerstone.
There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Caedes
I would very happily change my mind if I was provided with empirical evidence that I was wrong. In fact I would welcome people providing such evidence. If people choose not to change their mind after being presented with such evidence then they are fools. You are assuming that the default religious position of believing things despite evidence also applies to more rational individuals.
Do you have any solid evidence that Jesus was a real person who was resurrected?
Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected?
Caedes
Honesty,
There is no empirical evidence for either Jesus being real or being resurrected.
Any discussion regarding the reality of Jesus and His resurrection necessitates a degree of faith and participants willing to admit that they don't have all the answers, otherwise the discussion will go nowhere fast.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Caedes,
Do you have any solid evidence that Jesus was a real person who was resurrected?
Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected?
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
bohm
Since the holy spirit obviously choose not to reveal anything to me we can only agree to disagree. The intent of this topic is to examine the rational basis for believing in the stories in the bible and introducing the holy spirit is OT.
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree with you or anyone else because each person is unique and has different views, opinions and beliefs than any other person who has ever lived.
BTW, in the New Testament, Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit after He went away according to John 16:7-11.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Honesty: The argument in the OP is exactly trying to address the rational basis for forming ones view regarding Jesus and the bible in general. Asking if people think someone can change their mind is a distraction as their psychological predisposition is not really of importance. The issue is what the arguments in fact are and what is reasonable to believe.
What is rational or logical about the "King of kings and Lord of lords" being conceived out of wedlock, being born in a barn, raised in a financially destitute home, going from town to town followed by a ragtag group of people who were looked down upon by the social elite as he preached a message of love, tolerance and change, imprisoned for his views and crucified alongside known criminals?
Any discussion regarding Jesus' resurrection necessitates a degree of faith and participants willing to admit that they don't have all the answers, otherwise the discussion will go nowhere fast.
A person who believes the resurrection is fact does not need all the facts to believe in the Resurrection, because the Holy Spirit intimately and powerfully reveals Jesus to them.
