I'm no scholar, but it does appear that right out of the gate, the WTS took liberties in translating the scriptures. Pretty sure no scholar would translate the spririt of God as his active force....
Posts by TTWSYF
-
-
-
TTWSYF
-
34
What’s Your Favorite Breakfast??
by minimus into me, breakfast can be served at any time of the day.
a local bar in my area serves breakfast all day long.
for 5 bucks you get 2 eggs any way you like, bacon sausage or ham with home fries and toast!!
-
-
TTWSYF
omelettes cooked to order from an omelet station at a hotel, on a cruise, where ever
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
Hi GG, Sorry for the delay. I am not always on this site. I reply below, not to get in a he said/she said back and forth thing. I reply only to clarify my position. There are too many reasons for why I believe what I believe. There's no 'only one reason'. There are many, too many for you not to believe.
Ever hear of the 'Miracle of the Sun' Happened in Fatima, Portugal Oct 13, 1917. Some 60.000 firsthand witnesses to the event. All types of folks. Not one denied what they saw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
Giles reply to [in italics] see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed,
I agree that there would be a profound difference between the two positions. A first hand account is about the best evidence one could get. So I’m more than happy to concede that point.
However, this distinction still doesn’t help substantiate your original claim… that the manner of their martyrdom proves that God and the bible are true.
So, I never said that the martyrdom of these witnesses proves that God and the bible are true. My position was/is that their martyrdom DOES prove that Jesus Christ DID rise from the grave because of their testimony. For the exact same reason that you gave "A first hand account is about the best evidence one could get. So I’m more than happy to concede that point."
So maybe we agree that their martyrdom could be proof of the resurrection? I accept it as true because of their testimony.
Premise 1: The apostles and hundreds of other people witnessed first hand Jesus being resurrected and, as a result, went on to die horrific deaths as martyrs because of the conviction of what they had seen.
I would agree
Premise 2: ONLY people with the conviction of firsthand experiences would ever allow themselves to suffer such horrific martyrdom.
I wouldn't agree with ONLY, but I think if it were NOT true, someone would have said 'ok, ok, it's a lie'
Conclusion: The ONLY explanation for these people allowing themselves to die in such a manner would be if Jesus had actually risen, therefore the god of the bible exists. Is this a fair representation of your argument?
No, not a fair representation. The resurrection account is only 1 piece of a tapestry that gives my faith conviction or confidence. The bible is not the start all/end all of Christianity. The bible is just a book. Christianity was up and running for 3 1/2 centuries before the bible cannon was completely confirmed. Most biblical scholars put the letters and Gospels and such of the NT written within a generation to a generation and a half after the resurrection. First 75 years or so after Jesus's death and resurrection. They were busy loving their neighbors and ALL that they did could not possibly fit in a book. Just as it couldn't dare to contain the whole of Jesus' life and all of Christianity. In my somewhat bold opinion anyway...
Respectfully,
TTWSYF
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
Giles Gray2 days ago
This line of reasoning is used by nearly all judeo-christian theologies in order to substantiate their faith. It utilises a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.
The fallacious nature of this argument is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Muslims and Mormons can also employ the same false reasoning to uphold their competing theologies.
I am not citing all early Christian martyrs, I am only citing the witnesses of Jesus resurrection who were martyred for what they witnessed and would not recant. That is the diff. JW martyrs exist because they believe not to take blood and they die for their beliefs. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist martyrs have died for their beliefs, but the examples that I am citing were witnesses. That is why you cannot cite false reasoning or say that it is an argument of ignorance. That doesn't fly for the examples that I cite.
It is also incorrect to presume that the first century martyrs knowingly died for a lie. The fact that they died by such gruesome executions indicates the extent of their conviction in what they believed.
Yes, my point exactly, they did not die for a lie. They would have not died for a lie, if they did, then they were the ones lying. They were the start of the Christian faith. A faith that the authorities did not want to continue.
However, this only goes to demonstrate the folly of using faith as a metric to assess what is truth. Faith allows people to hold conviction in their beliefs without sufficient evidence. As a result, people have died because of holding fast to a belief based on poor epistemology.
Again, they were not martyred because of the conviction of their faith, they were martyred because they witnesses the risen Lord and would not recant or deny what they had witnessed.
Being martyred because of adhering to faulty premises only reveals the fallibility of religious conviction. People can die for being mistaken, which is certainly no indication that what they died for is true. Therefore the martyrdom of the first century Christians can hardly be used as evidence that what they believed in was truth.
Too many witnesses for being mistaken. Many of these people were considered a lower class of society. Fishermen, tax collectors, beggars, women, etc. Yet they all held onto their witnessing of the risen Lord.
" Although both were martyrs, there's a major difference when you are a witness and know that it is false."
Such evidence can only be considered anecdotal and is impossible to distinguish from folklore. That's still not sufficient evidence for God.
This evidence is anything but anecdotal or folklore. There are thousands of pages written about these events.
The above statement negates the unfalsifyiable claim that the martyrdom of the first century Christians can in any way be considered as evidence that the god of the bible exists. If believers of other theologies can have faith based on false beliefs, it leaves us no methodology in order to be able to distinguish the early Christians from any other believer.
Nothing to do with the bible or even religion. Has all to do with what they saw and how they would die rather than say they didn't see it with their own eyes..
For example, the prophet Muhammad many times witnessed an Angelophany as well as many other miracles. He also died a martyr.
The faith of Islam and classic Christianity contradict each other in many ways, yet by the above reckoning they both equally tick the criteria that qualifies as evidence of their gods. This way of reasoning is therefore irreconcilable and defies the laws of logic.
The only way to prove either theological claim would be to supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claim was factual. Therefore, testimony from either of the religious fables cannot be considered as evidence, because they both meet the required criteria while at the same time prove contradictory to each other.
As there is no contemporary evidence to substantiate that the early Christians did actually witness the resurrection of Jesus, (a point equally applicable to the assertions surrounding the prophet of Islam) the testimony of their claim cannot be verified one way or the other. It therefore cannot be considered evidence for God.
Many of the early church fathers speak about the witnesses of Christ's resurrection. Thousands of pages are available. Frankly, though, if one cannot see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed, then I am only wasting typing time here.
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
Hi Giles Grey and Onager,
Just saw your post. Will address all of your questions in the next few days or less. I won't have time to effectively answer each one now. That said, let me start with [me=bold text, Giles Grey italics texts] question about my claims
"One example of evidence could be the way the apostles and 90% of the early Christians leaders were tortured to death is evidence. Why die for a lie? To what end?"
This line of reasoning is used by nearly all judeo-christian theologies in order to substantiate their faith. It utilises a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.
The fallacious nature of this argument is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Muslims and Mormons can also employ the same false reasoning to uphold their competing theologies.
It is also incorrect to presume that the first century martyrs knowingly died for a lie. The fact that they died by such gruesome executions indicates the extent of their conviction in what they believed
GG,I am aware of the awful circumstances involving all forms of martyrdom. I am speaking of the differences that are unique to early christian martyrdom.
My post about the 1st apostles IS different because the apostles were the witnesses.They were NOT converts, who heard from someone else. They saw the RISEN LORD. They didn't hear about it from someone else ..So that means, if their story was not truthful, there would have been a crack. Too many witnesses for it NOT to be true. ANY other faith is based on what someone else had testified to. The Christian Church was started by the apostles and dozens if not hundreds others who were witness to the resurrected Jesus. Most eventually tortured to death., Why not recant if it were not true?
My Point?-It's true. Jesus did rise from the dead. My opinion, maybe not yours.
Onoger wrote Close companions of Jesus and close companions of Muhammad who both die as martyrs are only different if you start with the claim that Jesus was special. You're trying to prove that Jesus was special though, so you can't start with that.
Not saying that Jesus was different [but of course, I think HE was..lol]
I am saying that the apostles were different in so much as they [and dozens of others] were actual witnesses. They were not convinced because of someone else's words. They believed because THEY SAW.
You really don't see the diff?
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
I'm not denying other martyrs.
I am denying that your example can compare to the earliest christian martyrs who claimed that ' Jesus indeed did rise from the dead after 3 days and I heard him say that''
That was what the apostles and dozens of others proclaimed unto death They were witnesses of the risen Lord and could not deny it. It wasn't only a faith thing, it was a witness thing too. Convinced by witnessing his resurrection and proclaiming it. Certainly you can see how that is a possible significant difference to someone dying because of anothers' words.
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
Thank you for your response, but I'm sorry you are wrong to say that there is evidence for the existence of the biblical god. If there was any evidence then there would be only two types of people in the world: people who accepted the evidence and people who would rather die.
There are always 2 types of people on any side of an argument. Those who accept the evidence and follow the truth and those who do not accept the evidence and frankly just refuse and won't even look at it.
Your example of the early Christian leaders being tortured to death is clearly wrong because we know that people have been martyred for beliefs which are contradictory to those of Christians. The Jews who accepted death by burning at the stake rather than convert to Christianity during the inquisition for example.
The early Christian martyrs were not only believers of a faith that they would die for. They were witnesses. The apostles were witnesses of Jesus's resurrection and COULD not deny what they knew to be true. That is quite different from someone who has faith in their faith. Although both were martyrs, there's a major difference when you are a witness and know that it is false.
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
Denying the truth doesn't make you smarter. Lofty, you're such a hypocrite bully.
Lofty...hilarious
make sure you like yours and dislike mine
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
cofty6 minutes ago
TPopeWSYF - Without theology we would still have all of those things
If that were true we would have already had them. The Catholic Church gave the whole world those things.Your post about theology giving the world nothing is patently false.
You seem to be shrinking a little here. Don't like people strongly disagreeing with your post or something? That's what bullies do when they get confronted...with facts...they shrink
-
88
For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?
by BourneIdentity inin the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.
we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.
why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?
-
-
TTWSYF
ofty8 minutes ago
Another Lofty gem,- Theology has added precisely nothing that could not have been achieved without it.
Except for hospitals, doctors, nurses, the university system, the scientific method, worldwide charity to all, the free market economy, P,O,W,s going home to freedom after war., human dignity based on the fact that we're humans. The list goes on. The monasteries were the 1st university system that would share their teachings with each other to insure that they were teaching the same thing amongst themselves. That's how we got the scientific method.
Source -How the Catholic Church build western civilization By Thomas E Woods Jr. PH.D
What's your source?