I believe in UFO's but I don't believe they have come from outer space from another planet. I believe many people have certainly seen or experienced 'something' they figured was alien.
yadda yadda 2
JoinedPosts by yadda yadda 2
-
27
UFO's are the greatest hoax of all time! They exist only in our mind!
by Witness 007 ingeneral mccarthur 1955 ; "the next great war will be an inter-planetary war...".
ufo sightings "took off" after world war 2...why?
well what were people watching at the movies?
-
-
-
18
regular dub vs. 144K dub
by ellderwho injw doctrine teaches that humans do not have a spirit that continues on after death......so.......... how is the element manifested inside the human form that enables a heaven bound witness to continue on to heaven?
and why are they automatically given robes, and their clean and spotless before the lamb?
since the great crowd dub has to work and wait for perfection does this mean christs' ransom was of greater value for the 144k?
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Elderwho, I don't think JW's would say those resurrected to heaven lose their memories of sin and knowledge of what sin is. The difference is they die and have thus paid the wages of sin but they are resurrected with a spirit body, which is not subject to Adamic sin. And so no longer with fleshly bodies under the curse of Adamic sin and death, they are now perfect, like angels, but with the same essential personality and memories. I know this is not explicitly set out in scripture though.
As for the second point, I think it has everything to do with the ransom. You are taking Romans 6.23 in absolute isolation but we must take the context into consideration. The scriptures talk about the power of the ransom to extinguish Adamic sin and death and for Christians to 'pass over from death to live' and suchlike. Admittedly though that is only in relation to the heavenly resurrection because that was the 'hope' of all early Christians.
But I can see how it can be argued that humans on earth can only be bought back to perfection after having first died, since the purpose of the ransom scripturally is nearly always linked to release the dead from from Hades. The NT reads that the purpose of the ransom is resurrection. You could probably make a good scriptural case for that, depending on whether you argue that the 'great crowd' is a heavenly class or earthly class that 'passes through' the Great Tribulation (Rev 7).
-
20
New Bond Flick.....
by yknot inhas anyone seen it?.
sis and i noticed that divx has it uploaded.. http://66stage.com/movies.php?pl=div2&url=qzrgqcbcuaku&w=320&h=240.
is it worth 106 minutes of our time?.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
I hated Casino Royale and I can't stand Daniel Craig. I prefer the older style ones anyday. Bring 'em back!
-
23
Why don't I have friends?
by mtsgrad inbeen in the troof for 30yrs, pionered for 15yrs, became servant and did mts and had loadsa friends.
faded and now no witness will talk to me.
i was a crap friend so deserve itmy friends were not real friendsthe religion is to blamenon of the abovecheers.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Its a little bit of 2 but mostly 3! Remember, if the Gibbering Body changed all this tomorrow and said that all JW's must be friendly to inactive ones, socialise with them, and encourage them in whatever way possible to get them back into the fold, your friends would be back in touch with you again in a flash!
Nearly all JW's absolutely do whatever they are told by the GB (read "faithful and discreet slave"), regardless of any scripture or warm emotion or common sense that might inform them otherwise.
But my advice is just forget about all your former JW 'friends' and go make new ones. Join a dancing class or Toastmasters.
-
18
regular dub vs. 144K dub
by ellderwho injw doctrine teaches that humans do not have a spirit that continues on after death......so.......... how is the element manifested inside the human form that enables a heaven bound witness to continue on to heaven?
and why are they automatically given robes, and their clean and spotless before the lamb?
since the great crowd dub has to work and wait for perfection does this mean christs' ransom was of greater value for the 144k?
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Interesting questions.
On your first question, I think JW's would say that those who are resurrected to heaven are created anew into spirit beings from God's memory. The JW's teach that all the dead are merely in God's memory, like a gigantic memory bank of everyone's DNA and personality blueprint I guess you could say, and when they are resurrected (to either heaven or earth) they are 'recreated'. There is no need for anything deathless in the body to survive for this to happen, JW's would say. I think the JW's view on this is pretty reasonable.
As for your question about earthly survivors of Armageddon, their answer would be that only those who are under the ransom can survive. JW's would say these ones are the Great Crowd who survive because of having white robes washed in the blood of the lamb.
What is perhaps a better question is why should everyone else who dies at Armageddon not receive a resurrection back to earth. What difference does the timing of their death make? It would be grossly unfair for God to resurrect billions who died before Armageddon but not those who die during Armageddon (unless they have committed the unforgiveable sin). But you make a good point though, which I think proves that everyone must die at Armageddon who is not covered by the ransom (BUT they will get a second chance by resurrection back to earth).
-
12
Barbara Anderson shares more secrets-listen in !
by kool aid man06 insat.
nov. 8 conference call was heard all over the world.
many former jehovah's witnesses, active jehovah's witnesses and others dialed in to listen to barbara anderson giving us more of the real history of the watchtower org.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Farkel...perhaps next time you shouldn't open your 'argument' by making a slur about my screen name. You obviously intended to insult me, so if you can't take it, don't give it.
With all respect to Barbara Anderson, who has done a lot of excellent research on important contemporary issues in the organisation and revealed some great insights, this research on Mrs Russell is really only interesting to the hardcore 'apostate' who has already left the organisation, is still largely psychologically captivated and enthralled by the organisation (only in reverse) and actually can be bothered reading this kind of rather esoteric, historical stuff. Its a case of magnifying the importance of something that to the great majority of active JW's, disaffected JW's, and former JW's, is dull and irrelevant. It is good for historical completeness and to 'put the record right' by perhaps revealing that C T Russell was less than candid about his inspirations and sources.
This material would never convince your typical JW in a million years to leave the organisation. Present this to some of your JW friends and see what reaction you get. It would be "Are you out of your mind...why should I care about what C T Russell's wife wrote 100 years ago? C T Russell was a great man of God who Jehovah used to restore truth. Get a life!"
-
12
Barbara Anderson shares more secrets-listen in !
by kool aid man06 insat.
nov. 8 conference call was heard all over the world.
many former jehovah's witnesses, active jehovah's witnesses and others dialed in to listen to barbara anderson giving us more of the real history of the watchtower org.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Farkel..with all due respect, your screen name says a lot about you too: F*ck all.
-
25
Are the gospels just midrash?
by yadda yadda 2 insome responses to this common claim gleaned from internet sources;.
the idea the gospels are simply midrash has several problems associated with it.
one is that the genre as such did not exist yet in judaism as the midrashim are a few centuries later.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Hi Blueblades. I havn't read Ehrman but you can see from the reviews of his book on Amazon.com that he is widely accused of exaggerating and overstating his case. I believe some scholars have formally responded to his book and if you search on the internet you'll no doubt find some counter-arguments.
-
12
Barbara Anderson shares more secrets-listen in !
by kool aid man06 insat.
nov. 8 conference call was heard all over the world.
many former jehovah's witnesses, active jehovah's witnesses and others dialed in to listen to barbara anderson giving us more of the real history of the watchtower org.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Very interesting but with all due respect, who cares that much about C T Russell's wife. When I was fully in the borg I used to be utterly contemptous of the way 'apostates' always seemed to hark on about things that happened 100 years ago. How about a few more secrets about whats happening inside the Watchtower presently. Aren't there any spies at Brooklyn?
-
25
Are the gospels just midrash?
by yadda yadda 2 insome responses to this common claim gleaned from internet sources;.
the idea the gospels are simply midrash has several problems associated with it.
one is that the genre as such did not exist yet in judaism as the midrashim are a few centuries later.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Leolaia, thanks. I will not order Spong then. May I ask which particular book of John Dominic Crossan's you would recommend on this subject? He has a few similar ones. I see that Crossan admits to interpreting from a purely naturalistic philosophy. N T Wright says Crossan is "wholly wrong" in his views.
Alternatively, which books in particular of those other authors (Koester, Gundry etc) would you recommend that discuss this subject? I'll wait for your response before I order the book Richard Bauckham recommends re answring claims of midrash activity in the gospels.
Obviously every scholar is biased. Trying to assess all this from as neutral and objective a viewpoint as possible is the ideal. I do think a position that at least allows for the possibility of supernatural events in history can be more helpful because of the astonishing (when you think about it) fact that the gospels are portrayed as eyewitness testimonies and are so packed with reports of miracles. As Mike Licona puts it: "It has been established that Jesus performed jaw-dropping acts that both he and his followers regarded as miracles and exorcisms. Nearly a complete consensus of scholars crossing theological camps agree with this conclusion." If Licona is right on that, and Jesus actually did do some amazingly mind-blowing things that profoundly affected those who witnessed them (whether they were tricked or not), it seems it is logical and reasonable to put our starting point for assessing these reports in the gospels somewhere beyond dismissing them as sheer fiction while retaining healthy scepticism. It seems foolish, arrogant to close our minds to the possibility that supernatural, miraculous events may have occurred in first century Palestine (that the gospels may indeed be eyewitness testimonies of), even though this is unprovable and even though belief in miracles is irrational to our modern, sceptical, western materialistic view of the world and history (and not forgetting that the world is full of anecdotal 'evidence' - from oiuja boards to ghosts to UFO's - of the unexplained and supernatural that should surely give us pause to wonder.). It is all lost in the mists of time of course but since all we have is the record and 'testimony' of ancient writers, if that record is full of miraculous events, we surely should not be too quick to dismiss their writings as fiction. As James Dunn puts it: "if we are unsatisfied with the Jesus of the Synoptic tradition, then we will simply have to lump it; there is no other truly historical or historic Jesus."
As I mentioned, I have not as yet adequately researched this fascinating subject of "prophecy historicised" (as John Crossan puts it, or as Mike Licona more helpfully describes it, the claim "that certain events in the life of Jesus may have been invented in order to show him fulfilling prophecy"). Nevertheless, at this stage, I have real trouble with accepting the idea that the synoptic gospel writers would have deliberately and creatively portrayed old stories and scriptures from the OT as the actual sayings and events in Jesus life to such a degree that we can not really tell one from the other. Drawing on OT scriptures and parallels definitely occurs in abundance in the NT, but when we look at the writings of Paul and Peter (for example), it is usually obvious where they are talking about a real event and whre they are merely expanding on the meaning of something by drawing in OT scripture. Jesus also does this. He sometimes explicitly refers to some scripture or 'prophesy' and says it is now fulfilled or specifically quotes a scripture when teachin or expositing on something, eg, in his sermon on the mount or when debating with the Pharisees, etc. Given this,, to then assert that the writers of the gospels deliberately wove into their accounts in a subterfuge manner OT accounts and 'prophecies' so cleverly and imaginatively to make them appear as real historical events, really seems a bit rich. It seems more in the realms of conspiracy theory. I think at best we could say perhaps there may have been a bit of literalistic licence, but not wholesale in the way you purport.
Other factors also seem to weigh in to make it difficult to imagine the gospel writings engaging in large-scale, midrashic type activity, especially at such an early date before the genre started:
1. the generally accepted early dating of the gospels - the time between Jesus death and the NT writings is too short for large-scale fictional content to have developed. (elaborated on below).
2. There is now a consensus in academic circles that the gospels more resemble an ancient form of biography in genre (with a theological aim) more than anything else. Persons who write biographical matter are generally concerned with accuracy of information and a fair portrayal, particularly with many eyewitnesses still around.
3. Luke is regarded as a type of historian, and he writes like an historian. He explicitly states that he has made a careful investigation and asks the reader to accept his account as historical. It is ludicrous to suggest he simply borrowed wholesale from Mark's gospel, never verifying any of it, then merely extended it. This would mean he was nothing like a historian at all but was a charlatan.
4. As mentioned earlier, if the early dates for the gospels are correct (a widely held view now), there would have been many eyewitness and original disciples in the early Christian communities who would have acted as protection against wrong stories and corrupting influences (a point Bauckham in particular strongly champions). These original disciples, although diminishing in number and aged, would have read the gospels and would have quickly condemned them. We know the Christians in the early Christian era had a concern for authenticity and reliability because of the very fact that later 'gospels' and logia attributed to Jesus was never fully accepted and widely distributed, for the reason these works did not met the already established 'criteria' for reliability.
5. Jesus, his disciples, and the early Christians were devout, God-fearing persons who clearly were concerned with truth and righteousness, justice and purity, doing what pleases God. These themes are intrinsic throughout the NT. In this kind of environment, it seems implausible and counter-intuitive to imagine the gospel writers consciously fabricating the accounts. These persons were not liars, a point they even bring out (eg, Peter talking about the transformation). Yet John Dominic Crossan is effectively saying they were. It may be argued that they would not have seen it as lying, that they felt borrowing and 'historicising' OT texts and parallels would be seen as justified to further the agenda to persuade belief in what they had come to believe, to add persuasiveness (and there is some evidence of very minor tampering by later translators with such motives, but those incidences occur much later in time.) But such a view flies in the face of the internal evidence within the gospels that shows the stark concern for truth and how Jesus exposed and condemned liars and deceivers (such as the Pharisees). Can we really imagine Mark, who was obviously a trusted devoted disciple, engaging in what his Lord had roundly condemned? Also, the idea that the gospel writers deliberately wove in fictional elaborations (either derived from the OT or hellenistic sources) merely to add more persuasiveness and cogency to their accounts, to encourage belief, flies in the face of the extremely candid tenure and accounts we read about of all the flaws and foibles of the apostles and early disciples.
6. Similarly, neither were the audiences in the remoter congregations just incredulous heathens turning up to hear a good tale of some mythological god-man hero; they were individuals desirous to hear the truth about a very recent person, not some distant myth. The early Christian teachers were preaching a rejection of the fables and false gods they formerly embraced. This is borne out in Paul's speech to the pagans at the Aeropagus in Acts 17. And of course, tradents and elders in the congregations had a role to teach authentically what had been handed down to them. The environment was one of turning away from the pagan fables and beliefs to something new, premised on rejection of all that was false and wicked.
Re your comment here: "We know at least from Papias and the apocryphal acts that these writers (or the tradents before them, as is almost certain to be the case with Papias ) turned to the OT to obtain details and narrative elements about the apostles. If they did this regarding the apostles, I see no reason to deny that it happened with Jesus."
Could you kindly identify your sources for this Leolaia? I'd like to compare these writings about the apostles with the gospels. I suspect they may be quite different in how they bring in OT matter.
Regards, Yadda