It couldn't be as simple that a man called Jesus at one time walked the earth, started a movement, then died like all humans do, could it?
AllTimeJeff
JoinedPosts by AllTimeJeff
-
127
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
by XJW4EVR inwhen 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.
-
-
-
127
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
by XJW4EVR inwhen 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
XJW4EVR
Your question asking people who disagree with you to "prove that Jesus didn't get resurrected" upsets me. Not in the the psycho way, but it is disappointing.
First off, let me REPEAT that you have every right to believe that Jesus is alive right now, surfing on big cumulus clouds. (or answering prayers, or helping all the billions who are suffering right now, whatever) I have no issue with you on it.
What I take exception to is the framework of your question, and the way that you are going about this.
While being tounge in cheek, my statement earlier that being alive has to mean something is true.
What qualifies as being alive?
If Jesus was dead, but later resurrected, it means a whole helluva lot from a Christian perspective. Been there, done that.
The answer to your question directly is this.
The reason for there being no evidence against Jesus being resurrected, and no proof against it, is that there is no evidence or proof for it in the first place.
Most religions have a story/legend of a god who died but lives again. Argue against their legends while you are at it.
It is the height of arrogance for you to forget that there are over 7 billion people on this planet with their own views and ideas about god and how their god also lives again, yet you insist that your legend must be taken as seriously as actual live people? And you want billions of people to prove that the resurrection didn't happen? Get over yourself.
I think Jesus own words come into play here about the resurrection. "God is a god, not of the dead, but of the living." I think that is a good litmus test for gods too. There are way too many gods that their followers claim to be alive, but not one shred of evidence exists to back that they are alive.
-
95
Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time
by AllTimeJeff inthis isn't meant to be a shit stirring topic, just a thought or two, a memory really, from my jw days.
because i know i have more experience then most on debating the veracity of the trinity..... there are two camps, people of faith, and people of math.. people of faith will always be more convinced of the trinity every day, because for the most part, the teachers of the trinity are very up front about the fact that it is a mystery.. so the more you point out how illogical it is, the more a mystery the trinity becomes, and thus, it also becomes more real.
awesome!
-
-
AllTimeJeff
Geez, I realy don't care. The Trinity is as the same as all other gods that all other religions claim. They believe it and insist on it whilst I don't believe it because the only proof for it is the (in this case) Trinitarian apologist. To believe, I simply have to buy your argument. Your words without proof are just words.
But I really wish you well.
I like bacon too.
-
127
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
by XJW4EVR inwhen 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
When Gene Wilder said "It's Alive!" in Young Frankenstein, he wasn't being abstract.
Being alive has got to mean something.
If Jesus is alive, so is Santa, and every charecter in Lord of the Rings.
The issue as I see it isn't Jesus being alive. (is he? Where???) It is the intellectual honesty that insists upon arguing upon a matter where no evidence exists.
Thank god we no longer live in the 16th century, though clearly we still have 16 century level thinkers who are willing to believe (as is there right) and yet also insist that they are correct (which is another matter entirely)
-
127
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
by XJW4EVR inwhen 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
My question to atheists, agnostics & skeptics is simple. Why shouldn't I believe in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm specifically asking about the resurrection. Please don't insult my intelligence and tell that Jesus did not exist, as no serious scholar, even the most liberal ones, do not believe this. Instead tell me why I should not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
If the question is why you shouldn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, please do not labor under the idea that you owe ANYONE an explanation.
I do believe that Jesus existed as a man.
Jesus is not alive today. I do not accept your testimony that he is alive. Nor do I accept the bible's account that he is alive.
Your challenge seems to be a sneaky way to try and debate a belief you clearly have no intent on honestly "putting on the table." I can only speak for myself, but since you want to debate the matter of Jesus being alive, I cannot engage in this debate, as I doubt, not so much Jesus being alive, but your intellectual honesty in the matter. Why would I debate with a person who simply won't admit "I can't prove to you with evidence that Jesus is alive right now"
I am alive. I am in Flippers picture thread a few times. Got any pictures of Jesus?
My point is, you won't consider contrary evidence, so why should I consider the bible (again) for the 20th time?
Anyway, tangent. Sorry.
Believe that Jesus is alive. Tell him I said hello.....
-
95
Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time
by AllTimeJeff inthis isn't meant to be a shit stirring topic, just a thought or two, a memory really, from my jw days.
because i know i have more experience then most on debating the veracity of the trinity..... there are two camps, people of faith, and people of math.. people of faith will always be more convinced of the trinity every day, because for the most part, the teachers of the trinity are very up front about the fact that it is a mystery.. so the more you point out how illogical it is, the more a mystery the trinity becomes, and thus, it also becomes more real.
awesome!
-
-
AllTimeJeff
Having given my opinion, arguing it doesn't matter. A trintarian will always "see" ways to believe. I honestly don't care anymore. I am just amused that so many still do.
-
95
Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time
by AllTimeJeff inthis isn't meant to be a shit stirring topic, just a thought or two, a memory really, from my jw days.
because i know i have more experience then most on debating the veracity of the trinity..... there are two camps, people of faith, and people of math.. people of faith will always be more convinced of the trinity every day, because for the most part, the teachers of the trinity are very up front about the fact that it is a mystery.. so the more you point out how illogical it is, the more a mystery the trinity becomes, and thus, it also becomes more real.
awesome!
-
-
AllTimeJeff
This is for Sulla. (it is sort of funny how a statement can be turned into a revealing look at ourselves)
AllTimeJeff confuses the observation that the Trinity is a mystery with the idea that it is illogical and then sweeps everything up with the simpleminded mathematical observation that three is not equal to one. Honestly, the temptation is to use the equally empty comparison of water to the Trinity (liquid, solid, gas, yet still h2o!) in reply. Let's take a step back.
It is only logical if the mystery was written by Arthur Conan Doyle, not "The Apostle John". I didh't attack the trinity, I actually commented how useless it is to talk about it.
I didn't say the Trinity was illogical. I mean, we have evidence of PEOPLE everywhere who are three in one. Totally proves your point. Also, H2O! Totally logical. I bow to that. It totally proves that if water is liquid, solid, and gas as observable lifeless, and brainless phenomenon, it stand to reason that almighty god, the father, son and holy spirit can be the same way. Thank the Father for water! (or the Son... whatever...)
That said, there is quite a lot of theological reflection on the meaning of the Trinity, focusing in various ways on, for example, a person and a nature might not be the same thing. It's all interesting and difficult, of course, and not the sort of thing that lends itself to online debate easily.
Of course. On that we agree. It is interesting and difficult, but not at all enlightening when beliefs are challenged....
So, the idea that debates on the Trinity are pointless because those who accept the Trinity are illogical is really nothing more than self-flattery. Mental masturbation, I guess.
Wow, do you have camera's in my computer room??? How did you know?
Uh, say what you want, the Trinity is illogical, nor proveable because H2O has three phases and yet is still water. Nevertheless, have fun believing in it if you want.
And it is illogical. To say it isn't is to demean the human experience, and I for one am tired of theories of god trampling down on what we poor creations of god actually get to see.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to find out if all the kings horses and all the kings men put Humpty Dumpty together again.
-
19
Research question re. Treatment of Disfellowshipped Relatives
by Quarterback ini do remember, but can't seem to find it, a watchtower comment that stated.
" relatives must decide on the emotiional needs of the df'd relatives to see what limited contact would be necessary".
does anyone remember this?.
-
-
AllTimeJeff
It's been a while since I left, but as I recall, the emotional needs of a DF'd person were never considered unless mental illness was involved. Physical well being (for example, taking care of an elderly DF'd parent or a teenage child living under your roof) is what JW's sort of pay lip service to.
-
18
Bloodless Medicine to be used in the US Army
by Dagney inhttp://wn.com/us_military_decides_to_abstain_from_blood_!_www_keepvid_com.
received today in an email...with lots of "praise jah's!!!".
.
-
-
AllTimeJeff
The whole premise of "bloodless medicine" is flawed. What is the oppositve? Bloodful medicine?
Sorry for my play on words, but think about it. Even Jesus said that "those in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do."
Sick people need medicine. No one just wants to indiscriminatly transfuse blood. All doctors for the most part have acted with the best knowledge they had through the centuries.
No doubt, in 50 years, doctors will look back on 2011 and wonder how the hell we made it! That is a cool prospect.
What JW's don't understand (and are prevented from understanding by the leadership) is that any kind of medicine, blood or otherwise, is administered after carefully thought out analysis of each individual situation.
Ideally, no one would need medicine or a transfusion. It is only given when things are going wrong that it is given.
So if doctors are trying to eliminate blood medicine, or minimize it, it isn't to placate JW's or to appease the almight YHWH. Doctors seek to limit or eliminate blood medicine only to help a person, not to sacrifice you to some invisible, non existent god.
Blood IS precious, esp as medicine. And it is expensive. So why use it needlessly if other options exist?
-
46
Apostates Shut the door of everlasting life in Men's Faces
by mankkeli ini was discussing with an elder today, and as usual the conversation drifted towards apostates and their line of reasoning, he angrily looked into my eyes with the scriptures in his hand and told me:.
(1) that apostates are destructive peddlers who shut the door of everlasting life on people as they are very sure they have no portion in there.
he quoted matt 23:13- 13 woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!
-
-
AllTimeJeff
My question is, do you feel that your activities here are synonymous to shutting the door of everlasting life on innocent people?. I just want to know if your motives are pure for what you are doing and if your experience as an ex-JW justify your presence here. Just curious.
You have a big preoccupation with "us apostates". I understand. For a long time, I could not figure out why "apostates" seemed so nice and reasonable.
It never occurred to me that many/most are nice. And reasonable.
Your question presents a false premise. It assumes that the door for everlasting life is held open by Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place. That door is not anywhere near the same universe as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Forgive me for a small exaggeration, but when you ask about pure motives, and you see so many eye witness accounts where the "purity" of Jehovah's Witnesses has been proven to be a myth, I have to ask you the same questions.
Why do you feel that as a Jehovahs Witness, your activities open the door to everlasting life? How do we know your motives are pure for what you are doing and if your experience as a JW justifies your presence here?
Just curious? (For the record, I am not trying to be a jerk, I just want you to think about what you asked me, and many here... Thank you for your kind consideration)