Many skeptics have been embarrassed by Bible-believers who challenged them to provide the documentation for the Pope Leo quotation; I don't think it exists.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
JosephAlward
JoinedPosts by JosephAlward
-
12
Bible Fraud
by radar inhere is an extract from the book: the bible fraud, by tony bushby.. some may find this a revelation!.
just who were the parents of jesus christ?
in the opening sentence of a new testament parable, jesus stated:.
-
-
JosephAlward
-
23
Interfaith in NYC?? Who knows details?
by OhHappyDay inwell, i read something about, but i have no link nor further details.
-
-
JosephAlward
He said that they would never link to an official website of any religion without an express, written request on their letterhead.
I wrote yesterday to Steven Friedlander of the Interfaith center as asked him if the above statement was accurate. In his reply to me today, he made it clear that he didn't have the answer to my question. Here is what he said:
In order for me to accurately reply, I need first to speak with our Communications Coordinator, Mr. Will Luers, who is responsible for maintaining and updating the website. Mr. Luers is away, but will return after the New Year holiday. At that time, either Mr. Luers or myself will be back in touch with you via email.
Thus, if Friedlander really did make the claim alleged by a forum member, then he seems no longer willing to stand by it.Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
23
Interfaith in NYC?? Who knows details?
by OhHappyDay inwell, i read something about, but i have no link nor further details.
-
-
JosephAlward
He said that they would never link to an official website of any religion without an express, written request on their letterhead.
That's preposterous. Someone either misunderstood what the Interfaith representative was saying, or else the representative was lying. Does anyone have a copy of a email from the Interfaith, attesting to this fact?
There are a number of things which makes this claim unbelievable. First, there's no claim on the Interfaith site (* http://www.interfaithcenter.org/christianity.shtml) that the organizations listed in the directory accepted the aims of the Interfaith Center. Why would they need permission to include the link?
Second, the link to the Unitarian Universalist website (* http://www.uua.org/main.html), for example, seems clearly NOT to have been made at the request of the Universalists, because the Interfaith Center impugns the Universalists with these comments:
*Many question whether this group is still Christian.
Really? Well, the Universalists think they are Christians, and they even publish a magazine called, The Christian Century. Would they not retract whatever “permission” they had given after reading this?In regards to the Universalist’s web site, the Interfaith Center declares that it is
…poorly designed
Does anyone on this forum really believe that the Universalists gave the Interfaith permission to denigrate it?I think this Interfaith business is a waste of energy. It’s clear that the directory of links to the various religious organizations’ web sites was made without receiving even one letter of permission on “letterhead.” Someone is either lying, or exaggerating.
I’ve written the Unitarian Universalists to ask them if they sent permission on letterhead to the Interfaith Center, but they will be unable to reply until they’re back from vacation, on January 2. I’ll let you know what they say, but I think none of you will be holding your breath. We know what they will say.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
22
The UN Affiliation: Likely Denouement?
by JosephAlward inive found the un affiliation threads very interesting, but ive also expressed the view that this issue will have virtually no effect on jw membership.
i have at least two reasons for believing this.. first, after reading w. j. schnells 1957 book, thirty years a watchtower slave, in which the author describes how the watchtower used negative publicity to increase membership, im now of the opinion that continued commentary on this matter may only serve to foster an even greater conviction on the part of rank and file jws that they are being persecuted, and they will increase their efforts to recruit members; this will offset what i think will be a miniscule number of defections by those who will feel betrayed because of the un affiliation.
the reason why i think there will be few defections is described below.. second, i believe that the watchtower can easily defend itself.
-
-
JosephAlward
Addressing my comments, Klaus wrote,
[Y]ou forget within your calculation [that] people often want to be betrayed.
That's an extremely interesting thought, Klaus. In an effort to become closer to Jesus, many people may indeed subconsciously hope to encounter their own personal Judas in order that they might better empathize with Jesus' betrayal and suffering. If that's part of the dynamic operating in the case of the rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses' attitude toward the current UN issue--and I'm not claiming that it is, then perhaps the revelation of the affiliation will foster a sense of martyrdom in the JWs and an even greater commitment to the organization.Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
22
The UN Affiliation: Likely Denouement?
by JosephAlward inive found the un affiliation threads very interesting, but ive also expressed the view that this issue will have virtually no effect on jw membership.
i have at least two reasons for believing this.. first, after reading w. j. schnells 1957 book, thirty years a watchtower slave, in which the author describes how the watchtower used negative publicity to increase membership, im now of the opinion that continued commentary on this matter may only serve to foster an even greater conviction on the part of rank and file jws that they are being persecuted, and they will increase their efforts to recruit members; this will offset what i think will be a miniscule number of defections by those who will feel betrayed because of the un affiliation.
the reason why i think there will be few defections is described below.. second, i believe that the watchtower can easily defend itself.
-
-
JosephAlward
Readers also understand that your argument re the UN issue can be applied to any and all criticism of the Borg. Any resistance to the Borg is futile since it will initiate increased Borg efforts which result in more gains than losses.
I hope readers also would understand that applying my UN argument to any criticism of the Watchtower would be misguided. I think it is clear that all I claimed was that “that continued commentary on this matter may only” help them (emphasis added); there was no hint by me that all criticism is futile. I reinforced this statement in a second post in which I stated that “I'm almost always in favor of the truth getting out.” Let the chips fall where they may.
While I don’t wish to litigate the UN case here, I think it’s appropriate that I explain here that the main reason I believe that this issue may actually help, rather than hurt, the Watchtower is that I think too many of its more vociferous opponents are exaggerating their case against it, and even telling outright falsehoods (though not necessarily deliberate lies). If this is perceived as deliberate deception, then the whole effort may backfire, since I’m guessing that JWs probably hate deceit as much as hypocrisy. I won’t outline here what I think those deceptions are, since I’ve done so many times in the threads listed at * http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/userposts.asp?id=4148&site=3
If anyone wants to debate those points with me, I hope they will either start another thread, or enter one of the existing ones dealing with these issues.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
22
The UN Affiliation: Likely Denouement?
by JosephAlward inive found the un affiliation threads very interesting, but ive also expressed the view that this issue will have virtually no effect on jw membership.
i have at least two reasons for believing this.. first, after reading w. j. schnells 1957 book, thirty years a watchtower slave, in which the author describes how the watchtower used negative publicity to increase membership, im now of the opinion that continued commentary on this matter may only serve to foster an even greater conviction on the part of rank and file jws that they are being persecuted, and they will increase their efforts to recruit members; this will offset what i think will be a miniscule number of defections by those who will feel betrayed because of the un affiliation.
the reason why i think there will be few defections is described below.. second, i believe that the watchtower can easily defend itself.
-
-
JosephAlward
Lionel,
If you don't mind, I would prefer not to unravel this thread by pursuing here the points you raised; I would like to let this one go for a little longer to see if there is a concensus among members that the defense I've offered is likely to be sufficient to shield the Watchtower from significant injury.
I'll be happy to respond to your comments in another thread, if you're interested in starting one. Or, perhaps you could enter existing but dormant threads in which I've laid out my case, and present your argument there. You’ll find those at
* http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/userposts.asp?id=4148&site=3
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
22
The UN Affiliation: Likely Denouement?
by JosephAlward inive found the un affiliation threads very interesting, but ive also expressed the view that this issue will have virtually no effect on jw membership.
i have at least two reasons for believing this.. first, after reading w. j. schnells 1957 book, thirty years a watchtower slave, in which the author describes how the watchtower used negative publicity to increase membership, im now of the opinion that continued commentary on this matter may only serve to foster an even greater conviction on the part of rank and file jws that they are being persecuted, and they will increase their efforts to recruit members; this will offset what i think will be a miniscule number of defections by those who will feel betrayed because of the un affiliation.
the reason why i think there will be few defections is described below.. second, i believe that the watchtower can easily defend itself.
-
-
JosephAlward
Your suggestion that the UN-WTS liason not be publicised pleases the WTS beyond the least shadow of doubt and therefore deserves to be full ignored. If extra publicity freed only 1 person the effort would be worthwhile.
It's not true, as the poster above evidently believes, that I think that this issue should not be given any publicity. I'm almost always in favor of the truth getting out, though people may disagree about how much energy one should expend to get it out. The lesser of the two points I tried to make was that this publicity is not necessarily going to hurt the Watchtower, and might even help. It's also not true that this publicity would be "worthwhile" even if only one person were freed, because it's possible that ten might be imprisoned at the same time.
My main point was that given the evidence currently arrayed against it, the Watchtower will find it very easy to defend itself, perhaps even without lying--in my opinion. Thus, the efforts its opponents are putting forth are unlikely to come to much, again, in my opinion.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
22
The UN Affiliation: Likely Denouement?
by JosephAlward inive found the un affiliation threads very interesting, but ive also expressed the view that this issue will have virtually no effect on jw membership.
i have at least two reasons for believing this.. first, after reading w. j. schnells 1957 book, thirty years a watchtower slave, in which the author describes how the watchtower used negative publicity to increase membership, im now of the opinion that continued commentary on this matter may only serve to foster an even greater conviction on the part of rank and file jws that they are being persecuted, and they will increase their efforts to recruit members; this will offset what i think will be a miniscule number of defections by those who will feel betrayed because of the un affiliation.
the reason why i think there will be few defections is described below.. second, i believe that the watchtower can easily defend itself.
-
-
JosephAlward
I’ve found the UN affiliation threads very interesting, but I’ve also expressed the view that this issue will have virtually no effect on JW membership. I have at least two reasons for believing this.
First, after reading W. J. Schnell’s 1957 book, Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave, in which the author describes how the Watchtower used negative publicity to increase membership, I’m now of the opinion that continued commentary on this matter may only serve to foster an even greater conviction on the part of rank and file JWs that they are being persecuted, and they will increase their efforts to recruit members; this will offset what I think will be a miniscule number of defections by those who will feel betrayed because of the UN affiliation. The reason why I think there will be few defections is described below.
Second, I believe that the Watchtower can easily defend itself. I envision a defense something like this:
We’ve always been opposed to governments, and have prided ourselves on being a organization not of government—a non-governmental organization (NGO). As all of our brothers and sisters well know, we’ve always opposed the United Nations, and believed that they are one of Satan’s organizations, and many articles about the UN’s failures have appeared in Awake!.
Watchtower writers long have been using information compiled by the UN and stored in their many libraries, and often have gone into those libraries to obtain this information. Since at least 1991, access to the main library—the Dag Hammerskold Library—has been possible only after presenting a “ground pass” to the guard at the door. When we learned that such a ground pass would be made available to any NGO which requested and was granted affiliation with the UN’s Department of Public Information (DPI), we made such a request and was granted affiliation and the ground pass was obtained. Much has been made by some of the fact that there were other ways to obtain the grounds pass, such as by convincing the library that the Watchtower had legitimate research purposes for accessing the main library, but at the time we thought an application for affiliation with the DPI would be more expeditious.
As a condition of being affiliated with the DPI, we were required to submit evidence which showed that we were publishing information about the UN’s activities. This we gladly agreed to do, since writing stories about the UN’s activities was something we were already doing. When we learned recently that some officials at the UN insisted that an organization’s affiliation with the DPI meant that it accepted the goals of the UN, we immediately terminated our affiliation and gave back the ground pass. In all of our correspondence with the DPI, we were never asked to affirm that we accepted the goals, aims, or principles of the UN; indeed, if we ever had been asked to so, we naturally would have refused. Furthermore, nobody in the governing body was aware that the DPI expected its affiliated NGOs accepted the UN’s goals. If the governing body had been aware of that, it immediately would have disassociated itself from the DPI.
It appears that DPI officials just naturally assumed that we accepted the UN’s principles because they know Jehovah’s Witnesses are against war, and for peace, and also because we were actively describing the UN’s activities, and gave evidence of this once a year when we renewed our application; it didn’t seem to bother them that we always pointed out in our articles that there was a better way to achieve the UN’s goals: the way of Jehovah. The Watch tower, as all brothers and sisters know, could never accept the goals of the UN, but we could--and did--demonstrate with our articles that the UN was not reaching its goals, and never will, because true peace on earth will come only when Jehovah establishes his Kingdom goverment on earth.
I wonder how many JW's are going to bolt the organization after hearing this defense.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
109
Matthew Makes Another Error
by JosephAlward inthe 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).
the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.
(matthew 1:8-10 niv).
-
-
JosephAlward
If Josephus was going to prove that Jesus did not exist he wrote at a time when he could have investigated those who were still alive and proven he never existed or never did the acts that others were attributing to him. Instead he acknowledged his existence and said that he was credited with doing many wonderful things. From his point of view he wouldn't say anything more. He had sold out his heritage to save his life when Rome took over Jerusalem and wrote from a slightly twisted viewpoint. Also, he did not believe in Jesus so why would he say more than he did? What other historians were out there writing history from which we could expect more written evidence? 50 A.D. is not 2001.
The same goes for the Roman historians. When they talked of Jesus they talked about him in negative terms. Why would they recount what he did?
The only acknowledgement Josephus made was his reference to "the so-called Christ, the brother of James." The few extra words about Jesus being a doer of wondrous things was added by Christian scribes many years later; all religious scholars--including all but the most die-hard fundamentalists--accept those words as forgery. If you will check the many links to articles which describe the evidence of forgery, you will see that your position is untenable.
Now, you imply that neither Josephus nor the Romans would have wished to refer to the “miracles” that Jesus allegedly performed because they didn’t want to do his movement any favor, but that doesn’t pass the test of common sense. If it were indeed true that all the folks in the first century were talking about the “miracle man” and his astonishing feats, then surely his enemies would want to put a negative spin on these stories. Ignoring such stories, if indeed they had been circulating (they weren’t) in the first century, would only lead people to believe that the enemies of Christianity had no defense against them, and that they must be true. What the Josephus and the Romans would have done if they had heard any of these stories is to ridicule them as nonsense: “What man of reason," they would laugh, “is going to believe that this miracle man put demons in a herd of pigs, causing them to drown themselves in panic?” (Matthew 8:31-34)
Or, “If this poor fellow Jesus really were the son of a god, then why did his god not give him the power to escape crucifixion?”
Thus, the fact that there is no record of Josephus or the Romans saying anything negative about the one who would be a threat to the Roman empire is strong evidence that nobody was talking about the “miracle man” in those days, and that’s because he didn’t exist. The stories about this “Jesus” were made up (perhaps in all sincerity by those who believed them) decades after the “Jesus” was alleged to have existed. The reason Josephus and the Romans didn’t bother to contradict the stories is that those stories were not circulating in the first century; there was nothing to refute.
You say we have no prove of what Jesus did. We do. Its the Gospels.
These stories are not proof of anything more than what I’ve many times stated: An author or authors called “Mark” wrote fictional stories about the “son of God” which were based on events in the lives of certain divine figures of the Old Testament, such as Moses, Elisha, David. Matthew and Luke copied these stories, making modifications to them for reasons relating to their own personal agendas. If you don’t believe that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, just take a look at the stories which were in common to all three books, and explain why the wording is so similar. But, don’t let that sidetrack you; what I would hope you would try to do is explain why the story of the multiplication of the loaves is so similar to the one in the Old Testament, and why Jesus’ lament at Gethsemane mirrors the one by David after he had been betrayed by his friend. Almost all of the gospel’s “Jesus” stories are plagiarized stories from the Old Testament. Please pick just one of the stories which I analyzed (linked to on the web site listed in the signature) and explain why you don’t agree that the writers used the Old Testament as a “blueprint” for the creation of the man they called “Jesus.”Do you believe Alexander the Great did all that has been attributed to him when his first biography was written more than 400 years after his death?
Volumes of biographical and historical information about Alexander’s personal life and his wars have been published. We know when he was born, when he died, and which lands he conquered, and when they were conquered, what his armies ate, and when they ate. The list of things known about Alexander personally is very long, and is based on records kept by his friends and foes; if you don’t believe it, just do a web search on him. We know virtually nothing about Jesus outside of what the unknown gospel writers said about him in their propagandizing stories. If the gospel writers really were eyewitnesses to the miracles performed by Jesus, then common sense tells us that they would wish to present their credentials to the readers. The writers would have carefully described who they were, when and where they were born, where they lived, what they did for a living, and how they met "Jesus." They would also have given us a physical description of Jesus, so that we would know that this man actually existed physically, not just in their imaginations. None of this did any of the writers do, and that seems to be because they never once laid eyes on the man.Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
109
Matthew Makes Another Error
by JosephAlward inthe 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).
the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.
(matthew 1:8-10 niv).
-
-
JosephAlward
RWC, you've offered as evidence of "Jesus" existence the fact that there's no record of anyone having said "he never existed."
They would simply say he never existed.
However, it would not have been possible for anyone to say such a thing, would it? What if a writer were to claim that last month in your town there walked a miracle worker who expelled demons and cured the blind? You could not say that such a man never existed, could you? Thus, thirty years after the alleged miracle-workings of the fictional "Jesus," no one would step forward to say that this person did not exist, would they? How could they possibly know that?Now, things would be quite different if there were extrabiblical accounts of the alleged miracles wrought by this "Jesus." If any of the historians of that time had recorded any of these events, then you would have a very strong case for the existence of "Jesus the miracle worker." However, there is nothing in the record, absolutely nothing.
How is the complete lack of corroborating statements to be explained? Why did nobody except Matthew "know" that the many saints rose up and visited the people in Jerusalem? Why did nobody but Matthew "know" that Herod had all the babies under the age of two years old who lived in Bethlehem and nearby towns slaughtered? Why did Josephus, the leading Jewish historian of that time, not know that John the Baptist's head was brought on a platter to the dinner table to please the wife of King Herod, but an unknown author, "Mark," did? Why were there no extrabiblical accounts of the miraculous feedings of the five thousand, then the four thousand, if they really happened? These thousands of people would have told stories that would have been passed down through the generations for a thousand years, but not ONE such story has reached us. Why?
Thus, if these events never happened, and Jesus never existed, it is not surprising that thirty years later nobody would be able to say they did NOT happen and that a “Jesus” did NOT exist, because such knowledge would have been impossible to have. On the other hand, if such miraculous events HAD actually happened, we would expect that they would have been reported, even hundreds of years after the fact, if they had actually occurred. There are no such records, and this is strong evidence that the “Jesus” in the gospel stories never existed.
RWC, if you wish to rebut my argument, I hope you will spend some time explaining why, for example, there’s no record of the slaughter of the innocent children of Bethlehem, or of the miraculous feedings, or of John the Baptist’s head on a platter. If you don’t believe there’s no record of these events, you may search the voluminous writings of the historian Josephus. You’ll find the stories of the slaughter, and the feedings, and the head on a platter in articles linked to in the web site listed below; on that same site you’ll also find a link to all of the writings of Josephus.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"